Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (BRITISH VOLUNTEERS).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the British volunteers who were stranded in Finland after the Russo-Finnish armistice; and will he instruct His Majesty's Minister in Helsinki to provide them with subsistence and to enable them to return to England?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): About 130 off the British volunteers are still in Finland. The Finnish Aid Bureau, assisted by the Finnish Government, are providing 10r their lodging and maintenance. Every effort is being made to effect the repatriation of these volunteers via the Soviet Union, which is now the only available route. Fifteen have so far received Soviet visas.

Sir A. Knox: Is the British Minister in Helsinki really trying to help these people and provide subsistence, as many are almost in a state of starvation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that His Majesty's Minister is taking a great deal of trouble about these volunteers and is exercising general supervision. The Finnish Aid Bureau is providing a supplementary ration, clothing and an extra allowance per day. As far as we can we are helping, and the situation in that respect is improving.

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible to send funds through the British Minister?

Mr. Butler: I think the best way is to work through the Finnish Aid Bureau.

Mr. Gallacher: If these volunteers are brought home, will the Foreign Office do

as they did in the case of the International Brigade—ask for the return of their fare money?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN TROOPS, CASABLANCA.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the presence of German troops at Casablanca in French Morocco?

Mr. Butler: A representative of the German Armistice Commission has been at Casablanca for some months. Early in February a considerable number of German officers, non-commissioned officers and men are reported to have arrived there in uniform and bearing arms. Estimates of their number vary. The Commission is said to include technicians of various kinds.

Mr. Cocks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and I will not ask what the Government propose to do about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOAT "CLYDE"

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement with regard to the loss of the flying boat "Clyde" at Lisbon?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): On 15th February a gale of exceptional severity developed at Lisbon, where the "Clyde," homeward bound from West Africa, was moored. The flying boat rode at anchor for some time, but was eventually damaged by floating debris and over-turned. After the storm had subsided she was dragged into shallow water. The engines and airscrews have been removed, and it is hoped that other parts may also be salvaged. I regret to say that one of the watchmen on board, a Portuguese citizen, was drowned.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether we are still using this mooring place, which seems to be subject to floating debris and which has caused the collapse of this aircraft?

Captain Balfour: I cannot, without out notice, give that information, but inquiries into the loss are being made by an official of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, who has gone to Lisbon


for that purpose, by the Director of the Airport, who will report to the Portuguese National Air Council, and also by the captain of the aircraft into the death of the watchman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS).

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, when the two periods of leave granted per annum with two free warrants are increased to three or four periods of a less duration to suit the convenience of officers commanding units, he will grant free warrants so that men being subjected to these alterations shall not be penalised by having to pay their travelling expenses?

Captain Balfour: I do not consider that any change in the regulations, such as is suggested by my hon. Friend, is called for. Flying personnel in the Royal Air Force are already allowed four free leave railway warrants a year. Ground personnel are allowed two free warrants a year and, in addition, have recently been granted an additional free warrant for embarkation leave. I am advised that when leave is taken in three or four periods, this is almost always allowed as a privilege for the convenience of the individual.

Mr. Salt: Is the Under-Secretary aware that cases have been brought to my notice of men having to go home more than twice in the year at their own expense from places such as Belfast or other towns in Northern Ireland to the Midlands, and cannot they be assisted? Not only does this reduce the length of their leave, but it causes them great financial hardship.

Captain Balfour: As I have told the hon. Gentleman in my Reply, when leave is taken in three or four periods it is almost always for the convenience of the individual. Two free warrants are allowed for the two regulation periods, and I do not think we can go beyond that.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the criterion of the time for leave is absence from the unit or absence in the home?

Captain Balfour: I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (GOVERNMENT VEHICLES).

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that road users can claim no compensation for in juries to themselves, their bicycles or their motor-cars if injured by Government-owned vehicles; and whether, in view of the enormous number of road accidents caused by such vehicles, they will in future be compelled to insure against third-party risks?

The Minister of Transport: I presume that the first part of the Question refers to the exemption of the Crown from liability for the torts of its agents. When a person is injured or killed by the wrongful act of an officer of the Crown in the course of his official duty, he or his dependants have a right of action in the courts against that officer, and it is the invariable practice of the Crown in such cases to pay any damages and costs awarded by the court. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is very cumbersome for normal lay persons to have to approach the courts before they can get compensation, and in view of the fact that Army lorries are responsible for no fewer than 300 accidents a day, is it not time that something was done to protect the public?

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not a fact that many Services do pay compensation when an accident is reasonably proved against them, without going to court?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think that is true. There is no actual reason why one should always go to court in every case, although the courts exist for this sort of claim.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it a fact that payments made are equivalent to those made in ordinary civil cases?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir.

"HELP YOUR NEIGHBOUR" SCHEME.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been


drawn to the difficulty of drawing attention of vehicles to waiting free-lift passengers; and will he consider arranging for some sign or signal to be displayed by motorists when they are willing to carry such passengers, so making it better for both parties?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Such labels are already carried by a large number of motorists, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions for making them more effective I shall be glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

"TALKING POINTS ON INDIA."

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Information whether the statement contained in a recent memorandum issued by the Ministry as part of the British Empire publicity campaign, under the title of "Talking Points on India," namely, that nepotism is a vice to us, a virtue to Indians, represents the considered opinion of the Ministry?

The Minister of Information(Mr. Duff Cooper): The statement in question occurs in some condensed notes intended for the use of platform speakers. If read in its context and with this fact in mind, it will be clearly seen not to carry any such derogatory implications as the hon. Member's Question would seem to imply.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the definite statement that nepotism is a vice in this country and a virtue in India, cannot possibly have anything other than a derogatory sense?

Mr. Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman considers the problem, I think he will see that nepotism, like many other vices, is an exaggeration of a good trait in human nature. We all agree that it is a good thing to be kind to the family, but, like other good things, when it is practised to excess it becomes a vice.

Mr. Granville: Is not Communism a virtue in Russia and a vice in this country?

Viscountess Astor: It is a menace everywhere.

ICELAND AND THE FAROES (LETTER CENSORSHIP).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that

letters posted in a town of which he has been informed, for transmission to Iceland and Faroes are censored in that town, and that letters handed in at the censor's office a few hours before the time of sailing are in time to catch the mail; that incoming letters, though distinctively marked on the outside as being written in English are sent to another town to be censored resulting in a delay amounting to weeks; and whether he will take immediate steps to have both outgoing and incoming letters in English, Danish and Norwegian, censored in the first-mentioned town where there are ample means of censoring speedily and efficiently?

Mr. Cooper: The facts stated by the hon. and learned Member in the first part of the Question must refer to exceptional cases, since it is normally necessary for all letters which require censorship to be posted in the usual way. As regards the second part of the Question, the staff of censors qualified to deal with the specialist work involved is too small to enable it to be divided, and as the contents of incoming mail-bags cannot be sorted according to languages before being forwarded for censorship examination, it is not practicable to alter the existing arrangements. I can assure the hon. Member that all practicable steps will be taken to mitigate such delay as these arrangements may involve.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very grievous loss and delay to the export trade through taking these letters, which are in ink and can easily be censored by anybody who understands English, from the port itself to another place further South?

Mr. Cooper: It would involve having trained censors at the port as well as at the not far distant town to which they are now taken. The delay ought not to be more than a day or two.

Mr. Gibson: Can the Minister say what is the difference between outgoing letters and incoming letters?

Mr. Cooper: I explained at the beginning of my answer that letters do go to the same place for examination.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister look further into the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL, MIDDLE EAST.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Postmaster-General the average time of delivery of letters sent by air-mail to the base of our expeditionary force in the Middle East, and whether it is possible to expedite delivery?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The average time of transmission of the air mails from London to the Base Army Post Office in the Middle East has been five-and-a-half weeks. Arrangements have already been made which will I hope, result in some improvement, and I am considering other expedients in collaboration with the Service Departments.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister do all he can in view of the importance of the matter to the Middle East?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. All the Ministers engaged in this matter are fully alive to its importance.

Mr. Lipson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that letters and cables to men serving in the Middle East have not been received by them, whereas their letters to relatives here do arrive?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know that that general statement can be supported, but if my hon. Friend has any instances, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that this long period of five and a half weeks is largely due to the insufficient number of air liners, and would my right hon. Friend therefore see that no more air liners are taken away from British Airways, which is engaged on these services?

OCCUPIED FRANCE (CORRESPONDENCE, BRITISH NATIONALS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the great difficulty experienced in obtaining any. reply to the large number of letters sent through approved agencies to British in occupied France; what steps he is taking to alter the position; whether there is any difficulty in similar letters sent by Germans and Italians to persons in the British Empire being received and answered; and whether he will give an assurance that reciprocal treatment in this matter will be insisted on?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that replies have not been received to many letters sent through approved agencies to British nationals at large in occupied France. I have no means of ensuring delivery of letters in enemy-occupied territory, and the senders are warned that these are accepted at their own risk; but there is no postal reason why the letters should fail to reach their destination. Most of the letters in the reverse direction, i.e., those from Germany or Italy for persons at large in the United Kingdom appear to be replies to letters originated in this country. I have no reason to think that this position does not obtain in the British Empire generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON (REBUILDING).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will consult with the Fine Art Commission, with a view to rebuilding London on the Greek classical, Italian renaissance and English Georgian models, rather than in other styles of architecture?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): My Noble Friend has in mind the advantage of consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission on questions of public amenity and artistic importance arising on reconstruction. The advice of the Commission will also be available to local authorities.

Mr. Hannah: May we be relieved from modernism in architecture?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE (REPORT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue a review of the Colonial Empire during the past two years in time for the Colonial Estimates this Session?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The previous reports circulated with the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Estimates in 1938 and 1939 were prepared in peacetime. In view of war-time difficulties,, the preparation and the publication of such a report cannot be undertaken at present.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. Friend consider the publication of such a report, since this is the only review of the Colonial


Empire issued to Members of Parliament? Will he bring to the notice of his Noble Friend the very great importance during war-time of the House being informed of what is happening in the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this question, and will he consider whether the fact that we are in war conditions does not make it more necessary that such a report should be published?

Mr. Hall: This matter has been given very serious consideration, and it was after that consideration that we arrived at our decision. A good deal of information must be collected from the various Colonies, and this means a great amount of work at the Colonial Office.

Mr. Riley: Has my hon. Friend taken into consideration opinion in the Colonies on this matter? Would it not be satisfactory to know that Parliament is not losing sight of Colonial conditions even during war-time?

Mr. Hall: I assure the hon. Member that the various matters which would be reported in the annual report have been considered, and some of the Governors of the Colonies know the position, because they have been consulted as to the advisability or otherwise of a report being published.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (CATTLE TRANSIT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the losses in cattle on their way from neighbouring territories to certain meat depots and factories in Kenya; and whether steps are being taken to prevent unnecessary suffering en route?

Mr. George Hall: I have no information on this matter: but inquiries will be made of the Colonial Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

UNCULTIVATED LAND.

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has taken any steps to call the attention of the county
war agricultural committees to the large number of parks and recreation grounds, in public and private ownership, which remain unploughed, and many of which are contributing little, or nothing, to food production?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): Land in public parks and recreation grounds that is suitable for agricultural purposes can be cultivated by the local authorities themselves under powers given to them by Defence Regulation 62A. The importance of making the fullest possible use of these powers has been impressed on all local authorities. As regards parkland in private ownership, war agricultural executive committees are fully aware of their power to give directions as to the use of such land for food production, and if necessary to take possession and to cultivate the land, and they can be relied upon to exericse these powers as widely as is desirable with the present resources of labour, fertilisers, machinery, etc., available.

Earl Winterton: Can the Minister explain why it is that there are thousands of acres of both public and private parks which are not cultivated? Why at this moment is there more uncultivated land in Great Britain than in any Western European country in peace-time?

Mr. Williams: It is because, as I said clearly in the first part of the answer, action with regard to the wider areas is strictly limited by the amount of labour available, fertilisers, and machinery.

Mr. Wedgwood: Cannot my hon. Friend take advantage of this unique opportunity, when we have landlords and anti-landlords agreeing on a policy?

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is a very large acreage of common land, especially in the Southern counties, which once grazed stock, but which is now overgrown and useless; and whether he will take powers, by legislation, or Order in Council, to compel lords of the manor, boards of conservators and commoners, to hand over this land to the war agricultural committees for food production?

Mr. Williams: War agricultural executive committees already have power, with


my right hon. Friend's consent, to take possession of common land for the purpose of utilising it for food production. This power has been exercised in a number of instances, but my Noble Friend will appreciate that much common land is of relatively poor quality and that in general the limited resources of labour, machinery and fertilisers can be applied more productively to land of better quality.

Earl Winterton: May we gather from what the hon. Gentleman has said that steps are being taken to increase the labour supply? Has any application been made to the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Williams: Aliens, uninterned and interned, school boys, prisoners, members of the Pioneer Corps, "old Uncle Tom Cobley and all," are all being organised for this purpose.

Mr. Granville: If local authorities do not carry out the recommendations of the agricultural war committees, can they be dispossessed in the same way as farmers?

Mr. Williams: I think that most local authorities in the country understand their obligations and fulfil them.

Sir William Davison: Has the hon. Gentleman considered getting some of the tens of thousands of Italian prisoners, who are quite friendly disposed towards this country, over here in order that they might cultivate some of these vacant lands?

Mr. De la Bère: Why not forget these words and deal with realities?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Rear-Admiral Beamish: It happens that I am conservator of6,500 acres in Sussex which have been referred to. Am I not entitled to ask a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: There are probably others in a similar position elsewhere.

CHEESE (MINERS).

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the special hardship of Welsh miners due to the shortage of cheese; and whether, to meet this hardship in part, he will allow pithead canteens to be treated as catering establishments?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food(Major Lloyd George): My Noble Friend is aware of the importance of cheese in the diet of miners and he is hopeful, despite the difficulties involved, that a practical scheme will be completed for improving its distribution. In reply to the last part of the Question, my Noble Friend would welcome the development of pithead canteens and local food control committees would without question register any pithead canteens which require rationed food to serve in the form of meals.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Secretary for Mines for the purpose of extending these facilities?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mathers: Is there any immediate prospect of obtaining the increased supplies of cheese promised in reply to a recent Question of mine?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, every effort is being made.

Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why large numbers of cafés can supply cheese indiscriminately for sandwich purposes while in industrial areas workers cannot get this staple commodity?

Major Lloyd George: The whole question of cheese is being looked into. I do not accept that it is possible to buy cheese indiscriminately all over the country.

Mr. McGovern: As I have been challenged, I say that I can get it even in Italian cafés in London.

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps the hon. Member will consider the needs of the mining areas.

WHOLESALE MEAT SUPPLIES (BUTCHERS' PAYMENTS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the North-Eastern Wholesale Meat Supply Association, Limited, are insisting that meat and offal allocations to retail butchers shall be paid for on delivery, although admitting that the present method has worked fairly satisfactorily; and whether this alteration is made on the instructions of his Department?

Major Lloyd George: In accordance with the arrangements between Wholesale Meat Supply Associations and the Ministry, the former take the risk of bad debts and guarantee to the Ministry full payment for the supplies they handle. The North-Eastern Association has found it necessary to ask the Butchers' Buying Committee in their area to pay cash on delivery, or, where this is not convenient, to agree to a form of joint control with the Association over the Buying Committee's reserve funds or to provide some other satisfactory form of guarantee.

Mr. Smith: Are we to take it that this alteration is made because there have been a number of bad debts in this area?

Major Lloyd George: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Smith: Why should this wholesale meat association put an extra burden on retail butchers, who have plenty of anxiety already?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member will realise that the Association are responsible to the Ministry for all their transactions, and they must safeguard themselves to a certain extent.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it peculiar to that part of the country?

Major Lloyd George: No, it is the same system everywhere.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the North-Eastern Wholesale Meat Supply Association, Limited, with a membership of 180, at £10 10s. each had, up to 31st March, 1940, a surplus of £81,961 5s. 1od. after paying all expenses; and whether, in view of the growing feeling in the area that a more economical method of selling meat to retail butchers direct is both possible and desirable he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: The surplus shown in the accounts of the North-Eastern Wholesale Meat Supply Association at 31st March, 1940, was £81,961. Up to that date the Association had handled over 45,500 tons of meat. The period of three months from the commencement of control of meat and livestock on the 15th January, 1940, was an experimental

period to determine an appropriate basis of remuneration. Under the revised rates which came into operation for subsequent periods the surplus will be materially reduced. The fee of £10 10s. is a nominal entrance fee payable by members, and is in no way related to the distribution of surplus funds, which is based on the recognised pre-war turnover of members.

SUPPLEMENTARY RATIONS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for a form to be issued on which people may apply for supplementary rations for special reasons, and in particular for people engaged in heavy manual employment?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 12th February.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that a form of this kind was issued in the last war which enabled the Ministry of Food to deal with the problem, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Minister with the view to having the matter reconsidered?

UNRATIONED FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he has considered representations from the Stirling and Clackmannan Co-operative Association urging the immediate rationing of cheese, eggs and jam with a view to securing more equitable distribution; and whether he is prepared to take any steps in this direction?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Urgent attention is being given to the more equitable distribution of unrationed foodstuffs generally, but I am not at present in a position to state what steps are likely to be taken with a view to improving their distribution.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the great mass of sedentary workers would be quite willing to give way on some essential foods like cheese if they knew it was necessary for heavy workers?

CHOCOLATE (HOME GUARD).

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of


Food whether he is aware that one of the biggest manufacturers of chocolate in England have last week refused the application of the 14th (Hove) Sussex Battalion Home Guard for chocolate for sale in their canteen on the ground that the Ministry of Food has laid down a new instruction that all chocolate for the Forces must be obtained from the social services recognised by the Army Council, and that the Order does not include the Home Guard as members of the Forces; and will he have this put right, as the Home Guard is a recognised part of the British Army?

Major Lloyd George: The manufacturers in question appear to have interpreted the priority instruction of the Ministry correctly. The personnel of the Home Guard, when in uniform or wearing the authorised armlet, may use garrison and regimental institutes or canteens conducted by voluntary bodies to the same extent as other members of His Majesty's Forces. Apart from this, they purchase food supplies as ordinary civilians.

Sir C. Rawson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the authority for this statement is the Prime Minister, and that the battalion applied in writing for this chocolate and has been refused? It is not a question of individuals.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, while they are in uniform, or wearing armlets, they are entitled to be treated exactly as members of the Forces. Therefore when they are working with the Regular Army they are treated as such, but for other purposes they are treated as civilians.

MILK.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food when he proposes to introduce the proposals for the milk trade put forward in the Perry Report?

Major Lloyd George: I am not at present in a position to say when it will be possible to announce the decision reached on the report referred to by my hon Friend.

Mr. Parker: When is the hon. and gallant Gentleman likely to be able to make a statement on the subject?

Major Lloyd George: I hope, shortly.

RED HERRING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why there is so large a supply of red herring on sale at fishmongers when there is a shortage of the more edible fresh herring, kippers, bloaters, etc.?

Major Lloyd George: The supply of red herring to which my hon. Friend refers was originally prepared for foreign markets which are now inaccessible.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCTORS (RURAL AREAS).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of doctors in many rural districts, especially when these are overcrowded with evacuees of all sorts, and what steps are taken to ensure that the younger doctors are not called up before the real need begins for the use of their services by the Army?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend is aware of the shortage of doctors in some rural areas and appreciates the difficulties. The measures which he is taking, in conjunction with the Service Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the recommendation of Sir Arthur Robinson's Committee, are designed to reduce to a minimum the number of doctors to be called up from private practice. In selecting the individual doctors for commission the Central Medical War Committee and its local committees give full weight to the special needs of the reception areas.

Sir L. Lyle: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a very grave danger for the civil population in what is taking place? Is she further aware that these doctors are available to be called up at any time, that they are fully trained, and that there is no danger in leaving them, from the Army point of view, since all they have to do is to be trained in the intricacies of red tape and how to fill in forms?

Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. Friend will read the answer I have given, I think he will see that we are aware of the difficulties. The matter was discussed by the Committee and definite schemes are now being thought out to prevent what my hon. Friend does not wish to happen.

Sir L. Lyle: Is there any danger in leaving the matter a little longer, since there is a definite danger in taking these doctors? Can the hon. Lady use her influence with the War Office?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not know about my influence with the War Office, but an agreement has been come to between the Ministry of Health and the War Office that these people are not to be called up, and a definite scheme is to be arranged to ration doctors both for the civilian population and the Army.

Sir Francis Fremantle: When will the priority committee, on which the whole thing depends, be announced and get to work?

Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot give the date without notice, but I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being gone into now, and that doctors who might have been called up are remaining in their civilian practice.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Are the Ministry making full use of friendly alien doctors?

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION (EMPTY PROPERTY).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce legislation to unify the law in relation to rating and valuation as between London and the provinces, so that regard may be had to the heavy losses suffered by many boroughs which are evacuation areas by reason of the fact that no allowance is made in respect of empty properties from which no rates can be collected, whereas allowance is made for losses on empties in the counties outside London by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee on this matter, but he is not in a position to make any statement as to the possibility of amending legislation.

Sir W. Davison: Is the hon. Lady aware that similar answers have been given for months and months past and that nothing has been done? In my own constituency of Kensington over 25 percent. of the property is empty and the

owners of the other 75 percent. have to find the rates.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of those facts, and they have been discussed from time to time. Arrangements are now being worked out with the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs, and the details of the scheme are now being put forward. I think that the hon. Member will agree that a satisfactory arrangement must be worked out to suit different localities.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Lady aware that some of us in this House would have been very pleased to have had the support of the hon. Member on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he will request His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to report on the large and unusual imports to Russia from the United States of America of copper, cotton, wheat, motor-spirit, etc., and the indications that equivalent products are reaching the enemy from Russia?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): My right hon. Friend receives regular reports from His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow on this and similar questions, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not necessary for us to make any such special request as he suggests.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the situation, described as serious by the Minister not long ago, has improved from our point of view?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir. I think the position is still as described by my right hon. Friend in the answer he gave on 28th January; but the conversations to which he referred in that answer are proceeding.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it not a fact, to put this matter in its true perspective, that these imports into Russia are an insignificant percentage of Russia's home production of these goods?

Mr. Foot: I do not think they are insignificant when compared with the needs


of the enemy, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on 28th January, there is a good deal of evidence that these imports go into the Soviet Union and allow equivalent exports to the enemy.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Are not the Communists trying to make profits out of the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will consider the institution of a "Help yourself'' service in the Members' dining-room, similar to that which exists in certain cafés and restaurants, thus enabling a quicker service to be enjoyed and a saving of labour to be effected?

Mr. Keeling: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether, in view of the spasmodic pressure on waiters in the Members' dining-room, he will provide a counter there from which Members can fetch their own food and drink?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The Kitchen Committee have already considered the suggestions made in these two Questions, and have decided that, under present conditions, it would not be practical to institute a "Help yourself" service in the Members' dining-room, while ordinary restaurant facilities are available. If, at some future date, catering difficulties should make it necessary, the Committee would reconsider the provison of a Buffet service, with no alternative luncheon arrangements.

Mr. Wakefield: Is the hon. Member aware that not only many cafés and restaurants but also a number of clubs have now instituted this service and find it a great convenience in saving both labour and time? Does he not think that, in a time of national crisis, it is desirable to save labour and time in this House?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that the conditions prevailing here are quite different from those in outside cafés and restaurants.

Mr. Thorne: Does that suggestion include liquids?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I am afraid it would be very difficult to control liquids.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the growing feeling against the position of the soldier who gets disabled on active service and marries after such disablement, and not having the same rights as to his wife as the soldier who was married before disablement; and will he say when he will be able to make a statement upon this?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): As I explained in the course of the Debate on 18th February, it is a long-standing principle of war pensions that the liability of the State in respect of the wife and children of disabled or deceased ex-Service men must be limited to family obligations existing at the date of the contraction on service of the accepted disability. This principle is one that has been consistently observed by Governments of all parties over many years, and I am not in a position to recommend any departure from it.

Mr. Tinker: I take it from that Reply that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to move from the present position. That being so, I shall ask permission to bring forward a Motion on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of a local emergency, the decision whether members of the Home Guard employed in controlled undertakings, where no controller has been appointed, shall be with drawn from their civilian occupations rests with the local military commander or with the head of the undertaking?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): As the Home Guard will be required in cases of military emergency only, the responsibility for mustering them belongs to the military


authorities and not to the managements of particular undertakings. Instructions have, however, been issued that men employed on work of national importance should not be stopped from working except in cases of urgent operational necessity. I understand that military commanders normally consult the managements of the undertakings concerned as regards the use of their employés in emergency, and I do not anticipate that any difficulty will arise in practice.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend see to it that there is a well defined routine whereby heads of controlled undertakings can make their appropriate representations to military commands?

Mr. Law: I have stated that the management will be consulted.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that in certain of these controlled factories the management are treating the Home Guard as a private army?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiries into the use of the members of the Home Guard in a wage dispute at a factory, the name of which has been sent to him?

Mr. Law: I have called for a report and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

MARCHING TROOPS (ROADS).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the advantages to wheeled vehicles arising from troops marching on the roads in column of threes are frequently nullified by senior non-commissioned officers marching outside the ranks; and whether he will take action to reduce the frequency of this practice?

Mr. Law: I am not aware that the practice to which my hon. Friend refers gives rise to serious inconvenience to motor traffic. It is essential that troops on the march should be properly supervised by their leaders, and I am not prepared to issue instructions which would interfere with this supervision.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend make further inquiries because in certain areas this is becoming a prolific nuisance?

RATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider introducing two types of rations for the Forces, active and sedentary, and thus obviate the present anomaly of workers in Government Departments and elsewhere doing similar work but receiving different food according to whether they wear uniform or civilian clothes?

Mr. Law: With effect from 15th March, all military personnel in the United Kingdom who are living in lodgings or in their own homes, under conditions similar to those of civilian workers, will have their entitlement to purchase rationed foodstuffs reduced to that of civilians. This will, in general, have the effect of providing the civilian scale for those members of the Forces engaged in sedentary occupations.

Sir T. Moore: While I welcome that statement, will not my hon. Friend consider having the two types of rations, active and sedentary, which would remove any doubt as to the type of ration to which anyone would be entitled?

Mr. Law: I think that will be impossible from the point of view of administration.

PETROL CONSUMPTION.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present method of controlling the issue and supervision of the consumption of petrol in the Army, bearing in mind the necessity for avoiding unnecessary waste?

Mr. Law: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Answer given to the late Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir J. Leech) on 12th March, 1940, of which I am sending him a copy. All journeys made by War Department vehicles are entered on work tickets, which show authority for the journeys, details of routes, roads, mileages performed, hours of duty and petrol consumed, etc. Commanding officers are responsible for ensuring that these work tickets are carefully scrutinised, so that any excess of consumption of petrol is immediately detected.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the


growing practice of promulgating Government policy by way of announcements through the British Broadcasting Corporation and publicity agents, he will give an assurance that, prior to the utilisation of these methods, a pronouncement on all subjects will be made in the House of Commons?

The Lord Privy Seal(Mr. Attlee): As has already been stated, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that important statements should, whenever possible, be made by Ministers in Parliament. I am not aware of the growing practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are always anxious to give the House the earliest and fullest information compatible with the daily and urgent business of carrying on the Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Should it not be obligatory for the Government to make all pronouncements of Government policy in the House of Commons in the first place; then, if Ministers must have publicity agents and pose before the footlights, let them. The public are getting very weary of this use of publicity agents, especially in the provinces, and I do not think it is very beneficial for the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Attlee: I think my hon. Friend will realise that in the conditions under which we are living to-day it is quite possible that announcements have to be made during week-ends.

Mr. De la Bère: Are not most of these pronouncements made to gratify their own egos?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED NATIONALS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether it is still proposed to introduce legislation conferring compulsory powers on Allied Governments in this country to call up their nationals?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to introduce legislation whereby Allied nationals in this country could be compulsorily called up for service in the Allied Armed Forces. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend on this subject on 3rd December last, the matter is complicated in its details and requires careful consideration.

Mr. Mander: Is it proposed to set up foreign courts in this country?

Mr. Attlee: As the matter is still under consideration, I could not give details at present. The hon. Member will realise that it is very new to have any such thing in this country, and it requires a great deal of care in working out the details.

Mr. Mander: I appreciate that, but, as exactly the same answer was given me many months ago, when can we anticipate something more definite?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

TIN.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply what was the price per ton of tin in 1936, 1940, in January and February, 1941, respectively; have steps been taken to safeguard the supplies required, and at what price?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The mean average price per ton of cash standard tin on the London Metal Exchange was £204 12s. 8d. in 1936, £256 12s. 3d. in 1940, £256 15s. 10d. in January, 1941, and £265 3s. l1d. in February, 1941. As regards the last part of the Question, the hon. Member can rest assured that the necessary steps have been taken to safeguard the supply position in this country. Purchases on Government account have been made from time to time at varying prices, but it would not be in the national interest to publish the quantity or the cost.

Mr. Smith: Should not the speculation and gambling which have been taking place in the supply of tin be stopped, and has not the time arrived when the Minister should take steps to control supplies?

HOUSEHOLD WASTE.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Supply what steps are being taken to en courage local authorities in the collection and preparation of edible household waste which may assist in meeting the deficiency in animal feeding-stuffs?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Supply (1) the number of towns in which plant for processing kitchen waste has been established, and, in view of the long foreseen shortage of


feeding-stuffs why there has been so much delay;
(2) whether his experts have tested and approved the Tottenham system of processing kitchen waste for pig and poultry food; and is it his intention to extend this system to all large centres of population?

Sir A. Duncan: 357 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales are making special collections of edible household waste and are recovering over 9,000 tons a month. In addition, over 1,000 local authorities are reporting private collections. Many local authorities have provided boiling equipment, and seven processing plants are in operation. The Tottenham type of concentrator plant has been officially approved and orders have been placed for a further 30 similar plants for erection in other large centres. In order to encourage local authorities to instal these, a guarantee, subject to certain conditions, has been given against loss on the capital expenditure or the operation of such plants.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a very large area where nothing has been done at all? Will he see that something is done, in view of the great waste that is going on and the deficiency of feeding-stuffs?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not attribute the delay to his Department but rather to the apathy of the Minister of Agriculture? Will he galvanise the Minister of Agriculture into taking some action?

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider making it compulsory for local authorities to collect waste-food products from houses, sort, and have it treated on the grounds that animal food is vitally needed at the present time?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir; this matter is under review at the present time.

Sir L. Lyle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the steps that are at present being taken by local authorities?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir; I am by no means satisfied, but there is a very big gap between satisfactory voluntary measures and compulsion.

Mr. Simmonds: What action is my right hon. Friend taking with the local authorities which are taking no steps at all in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

LUMINOUS PAINT.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the committee inquiring into the possible value of phosphorescent, luminous and similar paints and objects has completed its task; and whether the committee's recommendations are favourable and are being carried into effect?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I understand that the Committee's report is in draft and that my right hon. Friend will be receiving it shortly.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the report be made available to the House, and will the recommendations be circulated rapidly to all local authorities?

Mr. Mabane: The report will not be published.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that Members of the House who are interested will have no opportunity of seeing the report?

Mr. Mabane: That is so.

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot some means be found whereby Members can be acquainted with the findings of this important Committee?

Mr. Mabane: Hon. Members must put down Questions on particular points of the recommendations.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Home Secretary (1) to what extent the facilities for expert scrutiny of private shelter designs outlined in the Government's pamphlet "Your Home as an Air-Raid Shelter" have been made use of by the public;
(2) whether the Government are prepared in any way to assist the private householder willing to pay for the erection of his own shelter, giving expert advice on the basis of the Ministry's own experience in shelter building?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): As was announced in the pamphlet "Your Home as an Air-Raid Shelter," the professional institutions have organised a panel of consultants who will, for a fee of half-a-guinea, inspect a house and give a written expert report on the best way of providing shelter in it. There are 3,020 members of the panel, and at least 30,000 householders, and probably a considerably larger number, have already benefited by this expert advice. As regards further assistance to the private householder, a pamphlet supplementing "Your Home as an Air-Raid Shelter" is in preparation.

Mr. Walkden: Will local authorities be further told that they may sell salvaged timber to help individuals to reinforce rooms in their homes?

Miss Wilkinson: All the arrangements with regard to local authorities have already been dealt with in a circular which has been sent to local authorities.

Mr. Walkden: I understand that there is a difficulty in individuals securing timber from local authorities except a ton or half-a-ton at a time.

Miss Wilkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have particulars.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister prepared to do anything for the large number of people not nominally eligible for shelters?

Miss Wilkinson: The Government are prepared to encourage the provision of shelters at cost price to those who are outside the eligible category.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Home Secretary whether samples of indoor shelters which will be made available to the public can be placed on view in the Tea Room of the House?

Miss Wilkinson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend, with Mr. Speaker's permission, is arranging to have one of the new indoor "table" shelters placed on view in the Tea Room within the next few days.

Sir W. Davison: May we ask that a small portion of the room be reserved for teas?

GREEK SEAMEN (DEPORTATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Greek seamen involved in an industrial dispute at certain British ports were deported from this country after they had commenced action in the British courts; and, in view of the great disabilities this imposed on them and their legal advisers, whether he will take steps to see that this is rectified and that similar action is avoided in future?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No, Sir; my right hon. Friend was not previously aware that proceedings were pending, and no representations to this effect were made to his Department. I understand that some of the plaintiffs are at present at sea, and the position of those deported does not seem to differ materially from the position of those who are absent from this country in pursuance of their calling. As regards the second part of the Question, if a British court considers that their presence in this country is desirable in the interests of justice, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to grant facilities for their temporary return to this country, and he would, of course always be prepared to postpone deportation in any case where he was satisfied that there were proper grounds.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Member agree that it is most unfortunate that these men should have been deported while legal proceedings had been instituted, and does he not realise that it places the plaintiffs in a peculiar and difficult position?

Mr. Peake: I cannot agree that it is very unfortunate. As my right hon. Friend has previously stated, these men were engaged in activities which were prejudicial to the Allied war effort, and I cannot accept the view that the mere initiation of legal proceedings in this country, especially in a case where the jurisdiction of our courts was extremely doubtful, is sufficient ground for staying a deportation order.

STEAM WAGONS (TAXATION).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage the production and use of steam


wagons and thus reduce the consumption of petrol, he will amend the taxation and axle-weight restrictions which have legislated these vehicles off the road?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend is not prepared to anticipate his Budget statement.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in order to avoid a reply such as that, I put this Question down to the Minister of Transport? Will he bear in mind that 14years ago there were 10,000 of these vehicles on the road, and, in view of the petrol position, will he consider taking action, not as a Budget measure, but as a war measure?

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER, WAR OFFICE.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is stated in Command Paper 6255 to hold a paid civil office as Director of Public Relations, in view of the fact that this position was previously announced as a military appointment?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE.

INVESTIGATIONS.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether cases of suspected or alleged disloyalty to the national cause in the Civil Service are dealt with by the Department concerned; and how many instances have occurred where the police and the intelligence service investigating such cases have been refused facilities for their inquiries by the Department concerned?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes"; to the second part, so far as I am aware, "None."

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I have information in my possession which shows that these facilities were refused by a

Government Department at the instigation of the officers, and is not that a case of disloyalty?

Captain Crookshank: If my hon. Friend has anything he wants me or the Chancellor to consider, perhaps he will let me know.

ORGANISATION.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the growing public criticism of the Civil Service, he will consider setting up a special committee to inquire into the general methods employed by members of that Service in the execution of their duties?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery) on 26th February. Under the guidance of the Treasury the improvement of organisation is kept constantly in mind by heads of departments. I do not think an inquiry by a special committee would be as useful.

Sir T. Moore: While everyone recognises that the average Civil servant is a man of integrity, capacity and honour, does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that their very devotion to the Service and their colleagues might hamper the efficient prosecution of the war in some cases?

Captain Crookshank: I am obliged for all those kind things said about the Civil Service, which does not seem to have made it necessary to ask this Question at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN WORKERS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will institute an inquiry into the conditions of Indian workers in this country; whether he is aware of the undesirable arrangement by which Indian seamen and others are accommodated in cheap boarding-houses; and whether he will take action to prevent the exploitation of Indian workers and the operation of unfair colour prejudice in this country?

The Additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My right hon. Friend has set


up a Seaman's Welfare Board, which is actively assisting in arrangements for improving the accommodation and the welfare generally of seamen in the ports, including Indian seamen. I am not aware that there is exploitation of Indian workers in this country, and, so far as my Department is concerned, there is no colour prejudice in relation to their employment. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his Reply, may I ask whether his Department have investigated the conditions under which seamen in the East of London are farmed out in boarding houses at substantial profit for a very poor accommodation?

Mr. Tomlinson: Inquiry is going on all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES (LIGHTING).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Labour, whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 18 of the Third Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, recommending that lighting in factories and workshops should be improved; and what action is he taking in the matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. The test methods of lighting in factories have been the subject of practical and scientific investigation for many years, and have been specially examined by a Departmental Committee on Lighting in Factories which was reconstituted in 1937, and includes representatives of employers and workpeople as well as scientific experts. This committee issued last year a fifth report reviewing their previous recommendations in the light of war conditions, and a Code of Regulations under the Factories Act based on their recommendations was made last January.

Mr. Thorne: Have the local authorities any power to visit workshops with a view to procuring better lighting?

Mr. Tomlinson: Not to my knowledge. It is a matter for the factory inspector.

Mr. Woodburn: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to consider the recommendations of the recent Select Committee on this subject?

Mr. Tomlinson: The recommendations have been considered, and the Answer I have just given is a result of the consideration.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1941.

Order for Commitee read.

MR. ALEXANDER'S STATEMENT.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move, '' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I little thought on the last occasion when I had the honour of presenting the Navy Estimates to this House that if I ever had that proud duty again I should have to ask my hon. Friends to be content with symbols and tokens, which are all that is possible under the present circumstances. But if the documents which I have to lay before them contain only tokens, I can give them the assurance that the Fleet for whose maintenance and increase I seek Supply is no token Fleet. Nor are our ships phantom ships, though they may, I hope, be a nightmare to our enemies. On the contrary, to reinforce this Fleet I ask unhesitatingly for many more ships, very good ships, for large numbers of men, very fine men, to man them, and for great quantities of stores of the most substantial kind to equip them.
Never in the long history of the growth of our sea power have we had such need of numbers of ships and of men. For a war against an adversary of consequence, the volume of our trade which has to be protected, and the length of our lines of movement and supply, necessitate a certain absolute naval strength in the various classes of ships which is essential for the full exercise of our sea power. But these absolute needs, calculated by the Naval Staff on the basis that we should fight this war with a powerful naval Ally, have been very much magnified by the collapse of France, a collapse which altered the whole fabric of our strategy much as an earthquake changes the face of the country which it ravages.
I do not propose to describe the effects of that collapse in detail; its implications are already too well known to this House. In brief, it meant that we lost the help of the second naval Power in Europe, equipped with some of the most

modern ships in the world. It gave the Germans a new naval Ally in Italy, stronger numerically at sea than the Germans themselves, and possessed not only six new or modernised capital ships but also powerful cruiser squadrons and numerous submarine and light forces. Moreover, this new foe, as Mussolini was never slow to boast, was geographically well placed athwart our short cut to the East in the Mediterranean. But the collapse of France did more than turn Mussolini into the accomplice of a pirate; it gave the pirate himself new lairs from which to sally forth against us. By the conquest of the Channel ports and the bases on the French Atlantic coast, the German submarines were able more than to halve the distance to their hunting grounds in the Atlantic. They could attack our ships much further West and much further South, whilst our escorting forces remained tied to the same bases as before. By the use of their new bases, German aircraft were enabled to prey upon our convoys far out to sea and not merely, as before, in our coastal waters.
When this threat first loomed up— overnight, almost—the Navy had just completed a vast series of operations from the mist-shrouded cliffs of Narvik to the sun-bathed beaches of St. Jean de Luz, operations of which our naval history had probably never seen the like. The Royal Navy is proud to have borne its part, together with the Merchant Navy and gallant civilian volunteers, in extricating hundreds of thousands of our troops from both Norway and France. But this task was not one for which our ships were designed, nor which any prudent naval commander would have chosen to undertake. So heavy losses had to be expected and, with such a great object in view, accepted. They were, indeed, considerable, especially in damage to our destroyers. Although the damage was considerable, I may say that by skilled seamanship and great devotion the enemy was deprived of anything like the toll he confidently expected.
The Navy was, therefore, seriously depleted at the very moment when the whole problem had become much more complex and more difficult, with the exit of France from the war and the entry of Italy into it. By what seemed to me, I confess, in those clays—dark days—very


slow degrees, but which as I look back appear now to be swinging strides, we immeasurably improved our position. Thanks to a great effort by the men in the workshops, in the dockyards and the repair yards, the damaged ships were put back into service. Then, with forces initially much inferior, Admiral Cunningham and Admiral Somerville have not only kept the Italian Fleet cooped up in the Mediterranean but have neutralised it even in the waters which Italy specially claims as hers. By a superbly executed stroke of the Fleet Air Arm at Taranto, the Italian capital ship strength was temporarily halved, and in every encounter with the Italian Navy our ships and our crews have shown such superiority in fighting power and morale that the other units of the Italian Navy now scarcely venture to dispute even the waters around their bases.
The last six months have not, of course, provided an unbroken spectacle of progress, and a good case does not need to be over painted. During the winter gales our convoy escort forces have paid the price of all navies whose tradition it is to keep the seas, whatever the weather, if there is duty to be done. We have naturally also suffered a certain amount of damage. in action, and particularly to our light forces. From time to time we have suffered naval losses, inevitable, but certainly not excessive, considering the magnitude of the Navy's task. I always remember in this great fight of ours today that we follow a leader in this House who, if you show courage and go out for the object aimed at, is prepared to stand behind those serving him and to accept the risks. In regard to our naval losses, 1 think we have no surer proof of their smallness in relation to our task, than a comparison of the facts with the falsity of German propaganda. When I look at that, I find that their official communiqués alone would seem to show that we have lost, roughly, twice the number of capital ships, aircraft carriers and cruisers with which we started the war, and more than all our submarines. In fact, however, the daily work of the Fleet, and such outstanding achievements as those of the "Ark Royal," which has many times answered the German questions as to her whereabouts, prove that the great body of the Fleet of August, 1939, remains intact. I

may perhaps repeat the very apt remark made last year by the Prime Minister. I would say to the German Navy that we are quite prepared to take them all on with only those of our ships which they profess to have sunk.
We have also had to reckon with the effect of the enormous amount of sea-time our ships have put in throughout the war. Even the best-built ships must eventually be refitted, and this winter many vessels reached the stage when work on them became inevitable. A great deal of the short-term repair and refit work has been done, and, looking to better weather ahead, damage to His Majesty's ships due to the buffeting of Atlantic gales and the ordinary hazards of navigation should decrease. The number of ships in most classes, and especially in the destroyer class, now at sea or instantly ready for sea, is, at the moment, greater than at any time since the war began. Further, we are beginning to reap the benefits of the large programmes of light craft put in hand upon the outbreak of war and immediately afterwards; while, as the visit of His Majesty's ship "King George V" to America has demonstrated to the world, the heavy ship programmes of the years of re-armament are also in process of completion. The ships which have come or will come into service during 1941 of themselves make up a formidable force, judged by almost any other naval Power's standards. I do not pretend that all our new ships have been delivered on the date first stipulated. The very heavy demands for urgent repairs following on Dunkirk and the other operations in support of our Army on the Continent, inevitably had a delaying effect on new-construction. So did the extremely varied rush jobs connected with our efforts to strengthen the defences of these islands against invasion on land and in the air, to allow of which the Navy accepted the grant of higher priorities for the requirements of the other Services.
Even in face of enemy bombing, the efforts of the workers in our shipyards and workshops, and the untiring persistence and professional skill of the managements and the Admiralty production officers have maintained naval production in a remarkable manner. The widespread use of the spotter system has put an end to idle hands and idle machines when there is no immediate risk of attack. We have also


been constantly adding to our capacity, and no fewer than 154 new factories or extensions to existing works have been completed during the year, for Admiralty work, or are in hand. To-day, therefore, we are in a far better position than I would have dared to expect, in view of the adverse situation nine months ago. Our long-term programmes of construction are maturing, and a high output of short-term construction has been reached.
Although, therefore, the out-turn of new ships may be slightly less early than was originally planned, and rather more spread over the coming months than the first Estimates contemplated, we have every reason to be encouraged by the results which our productive efforts are showing. Nevertheless, I shall, of course, see to it that we always strive to improve our output. With the help of the measures which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is taking, I feel sure there will be still better results. We must impress upon both employers and workers that in facing the Battle of the Atlantic now opening upon us, we need every ounce of their energy, and ever-increasing production.
So much for the chief ups and downs of the naval situation during the past year. The main actions of the Fleet during that period have been given to the world as they occurred, and time does not permit a repetition, much as the tales merit re-telling. Combined, they unfold a story of great, majestic and unrelenting sea power. I believe, however, that the House will welcome some account of various aspects of the Navy's work which, by their nature, are unsuitable for day-to-day publication, or which may not be fully appreciated.
Some months ago, though I believe no longer now, one used to hear in ardent but impatient circles that the Navy was not showing enough offensive spirit. The various encounters in the Mediterranean have proved clearly enough, I think, that the Navy is no less anxious than in times past to come to grips with the enemy, in Fleet or ship actions, and that the battle of the River Plate was no mere flash in the pan. But there are many other ways in which the offensive spirit is being demonstrated almost day in and day out. It may not be appreciated, for instance,

how frequently our ships, though not designed to fulfil the role of bombarding artillery, have carried the war into the enemy's ports. We must not forget how intensive that has been. In the last six months the Navy have shelled Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, Cherbourg, Valona, Genoa, Kismayu, Mogadishu and other East African ports, as well as carrying out incessant bombardments in support of our Army in the Middle East, at Sidi Barrani, Sollum, Bardia, Derna and Tobruk.
Perhaps also it is not fully realised what a weapon of offence the Fleet Air Arm has become. Such an exploit as that at Taranto will never fade from the memories of British folk the world over, yet this was only a crowning achievement among many similar blows against the enemy. Naval aircraft have taken part with their comrades of the Royal Air Force in numerous bombing and mine-laying operations in all theatres of the war. They have been constantly out over the sea, waiting to pounce upon enemy warships and shipping. The skill and daring of these sea hawks can be grasped only from a catalogue of their victims. Since the war began they have destroyed one enemy battleship, one enemy cruiser, three destroyers, four submarines, four other naval vessels and 15 transport or supply ships. They have damaged at least two enemy battleships, two cruisers, four destroyers, four miscellaneous craft and 20 transport or supply ships.
Consider also the work of the submarines as an evidence of the offensive side of our relentless war. They cannot hope for the relatively easy prey of an enemy fleet at sea prepared to accept battle, or for great streams of enemy merchant traffic crossing the oceans, such as we present to the enemy. Even to obtain a bare chance of coming within striking distance they must be prepared to press close in upon the enemy's coasts, accepting the hazards of unknown minefields and confined waters easily and thickly patrolled by the hunting craft of the enemy. These great risks the officers and men of our submarine Service accept as a matter of course, in order that the enemy may not enjoy undisturbed possession of his own coastal routes. These brave men, however, have had the satisfaction of destroying something like 100 enemy warships


and supply ships, and they confidently expect to carry on the good work.
As a last instance of the continuing offensive waged by the Navy, I will mention the minelayers, submarines and surface craft alike. This is a task that requires of those who perform it great endurance, the cheerful acceptance of discomfort and frequently also of great hazards when mines have to be laid in enemy waters. Yet other evidence of our offensive activity is apparent to-day wth regard to certain operations in Norway as the House will have no doubt seen on the tape.
It is these arduous but unsensational duties which must not be forgotten if we are to obtain a true picture of the very essence of our command of the seas. The safety and feeding of these islands depend on an infinity of tasks, each of which, while not spectacular, demands not only high professional skill but great patience, resourcefulness, determination, and above all, devotion to duty. A great feature of the last few months has been the very intensive mine-laying effort made by the enemy, and especially by air. If these mines are not promptly swept up the efforts of our convoys and their escorts at sea would be brought to nought. There can be no regular hours in a minesweeper, no certainty of a day off. All hands must be ready instantly to proceed to sea and to grapple with the engines of destruction laid about our coasts. Truly the task of the minesweepers is never done.
The qualities of resource and attention to detail are also well exemplified by the work of the units under Admiral Cunningham's command in the recent operations against the Italians. With limited forces, Admiral Cunningham's staff had to provide for the movement of supplies to Greece, to Malta and to the main bases in Egypt. They have had to dove-tail into their offensive operations against the enemy flank in Libya the business of a veritable world transport agency, carrying troops and stores to newly-conquered beaches and harbours, transporting by the thousand great crowds of Italian prisoners and even pumping water ashore to the thirsty troops as they swept on. All this had to be done, mark you, not without forethought, but yet suddenly each day as required.
Then there is a large body of officers and men throughout the two Navies who work entirely out of sight. I think the House always does well to pay a special word of appreciation to the engineers who toil away below decks without the excitement which stimulates those up above and yet on whom success in action and in escaping damage so much depends. Often a merchant ship has escaped because the engineers and stokers have been able to coax an extra half knot from the engines—not always in the best condition—and often we have, in effect, added a ship to the fighting fleet for a time, when, but for the skill and devotion of her engine-room complement, she would have had to go into dock much earlier to have her engines refitted. One of His Majesty's ships recently returned home for her first refit for some four years. Engineering officers in a ship such as that deserve highly of their country.
I turn now to the greatest of all the tasks laid upon the Navy, the protection upon the highways of the sea of the trade by which we live in these Islands, and by which we sustain our power throughout the world, and which we need to win this war. It was an inevitable consequence of the French disaster, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that from the middle of last year onwards the enemy's attack upon our main life-line should be much more intense and more widespread and therefore more difficult to combat. Up to last May the losses of British, Allied and neutral ships from enemy action had averaged some 40,000 tons a week incircumstances, of course, in which we had the assistance of the French Fleet, when the Italian Fleet was not hostile and the enemy not in possession of the far-flung Western bases, which they now cover. For the next seven months the losses remained obstinately at an average of just under 90,000 tons. During the last 11 weeks for which statements have been published, we have on the whole been more successful in keeping losses down, and they have averaged about 51,000 tons a week, a substantial diminution. I do not attribute this reduction entirely to the various measures we have taken to improve our methods of protection, but I do think we are justified in counting these as at least one certain reason among other possibilities. While I put that reduction before the House, do not let us forget


that we must expect the enemy to make heavier attacks and that we may expect to receive grievous blows. The enemy uses every conceivable means to attack us in this vital spot—the lurking mine, the powerful raider, the aircraft—a menace to merchant shipping not known in the last war—the stealthy E-boat, as well as the submarine. The first of these, as I have already mentioned, is being dealt with. With the help of scientists, technicians and gallant crews we face the peril from the mine not with complacency but still, on experience, with considerable confidence. Aircraft attack became an entirely different problem when the enemy acquired bases on the western coast of France. Up to then his bombers had attacked only our coastal convoys as they continue to do, and the counter-weapon was there to hand in the short-range fighters of the R.A.F. From the French bases, however, the enemy is now able with long-range aircraft to attack ships far out in the Atlantic. I can give the House this assurance, that counter-measures to this new form of attack are being developed, though I hope, in fact I know, the House will not expect' me to reveal what they are. In this crucial period of the war, and in view of the enemy's attack upon our vitals, it behoves all of us in this country to stand fast, to avoid the waste of a single ounce of any commodity we have to import, and in every sphere of our daily activity to redouble all our efforts.
The enemy raider, whether warship or converted merchantman, is, of course, another major problem which the Navy must deal with. We are exercising all our ingenuity within the limits of our resources to frustrate this form of attack. As those resources grow, so will the raiders' opportunities become fewer. During the past few months our ships have gained contact with a number of raiders. Sometimes the action was broken off by the enemy, but he did not get away without suffering damage. In fact not every raider met has lived to raid another day, although I fear I cannot tell the House about that. There have been one or two occasions when a raider has encountered a convoy with inferior protection, and has inflicted relatively heavy loss, though nothing like up to the claims of the enemy. To see these episodes in

the right perspective it must be remembered that for every convoy thus attacked scores have come through without molestation and that very great armies indeed with their equipment, very large equipment, have been successfully shepherded by the Navy to the Middle East, without the loss of a single ship.
The enemy has undoubtedly gained great advantages from his acquisition of French submarine bases, while we are handicapped by now having to perform a world-wide sea task undertaken in 1918 by five fleets. The Admiralty never relaxes its efforts to maintain constant attack on the U-boats, and I have no doubt that the German commanders will find it progressively less easy to exploit the advantage which they have gained from the successes of the German Army. With the expansion of the reconnaissance forces available to the Coastal Command, which I hope will take place progressively throughout the year, the watch from about will become more difficult for the enemy to avoid. No doubt, too, the Royal Air Force, for whose assistance the Navy is most grateful, will continue to dislocate the organisation of the U-boat patrols by attacking them in their bases. At sea an increased number of escorts will enable us to provide greater protection for the convoys themselves. To these advantages will be added all the improvements in antisubmarine tactics and devices which experience and experiment can suggest to us.
Let me say, also, that although it is not our policy to make regular statements as to U-boat sinkings, we continue to inflict loss upon the enemy submarine flotillas. The very success of our earlier antisubmarine methods has given rise to a new wariness on the part of the U-boats themselves. To give the German Naval Staff their due, they have changed their U-boat tactics frequently and whenever they have become too costly; and new tactics demand changes in our own measures, which sometimes take time to perfect. Moreover, the results of the war against the U-boats are, by its very nature, uncertain. To establish a kill it is usually necessary to take prisoners, which is in such an action, of course, a comparatively rare occurrence. But there have been, and continue to be, a number of attacks accompanied by most promis-


ing signs where the submarine, if not destroyed, has been badly damaged and probably put out of action for a considerable time.
Apart from the protection afforded by warships and aircraft escort, we have continued to give merchant ships weapons with which to defend themselves against enemy attack. We are continuing, moreover, to increase and improve the scale of defence provided, and particularly of antiaircraft armament. This defensive arming of our merchant ships has proved itself justified. By timely and resolute use of their guns our merchant seamen often preserve themselves from danger and turn the tables on the enemy. In the month of December there were three cases in which merchantmen fought duels with submarines and had the better of the exchange. They have also been successful against aircraft. Up to the present 27 enemy aeroplanes attempting to bomb merchantmen have been brought down by merchantmens' guns, and 15 others have also probably been destroyed.
The House and the Press have recently shown some anxiety about the position of merchant shipping in relation to both new construction and repairs. I think it is possible in such a time as this to be misled by deliberately exaggerated enemy reports, detailed replies to which in public would reveal just what the enemy wants to know. Hitler tells us all about his successes and still more about his manufactured successes which do not occur. For example, the claims which the enemy official communiqués have made about merchant tonnage sunk total up. to just double the losses which the enemy have really inflicted, even though some of these losses, as, for instance, those from mining, cannot be known to the Germans. We faithfully publish the whole of the losses due to enemy action. On the other hand, the House must remember that Hitler never informs us of his internal difficulties, whether they be in the realm of shortage of skilled labour or materials, or anything else. He does not even need to have periodical secret sessions of the Reichstag to stress his needs.
To turn to the other side of the shipping question, I think it is worth while to say that the tonnage of new ships delivered from our own yards, plus the tonnage of ships acquired by the Ministry of Shipping abroad, and in addition the con-

siderable volume of tonnage of captured enemy ships now in our service, has replaced more than two-thirds of the tonnage of British ships lost by enemy action. In addition, we have had the advantage of chartering ships of States overrun by the enemy, some which were not previously used in the wider oceans. This should be contrasted with the position of the merchant fleets of the enemy. Do not let us forget the attacks made upon the enemy and upon his merchant fleets. Altogether they have lost over 2,000,000 tons sunk, captured or scuttled by themselves to avoid capture, and to-day they have over 1,000,000 tons more still lying useless in neutral harbours. The House will appreciate that there will perhaps be other opportunities of a more secret character, when I can take hon. Members into confidence about this question of shipping losses and replacements. It seemed that there might be a little anxiety on the opposite Benches about this point. When I referred to secret discussion, I was contrasting the position in Germany with what we are prepared to do here. I will say, however, that just as by means of special priorities the provision of aircraft and guns was speeded up to defeat the enemy air attack, and to replace the Army equipment lost through the defeat of the French, so there is now a case for the application of equally effective measures in order to help fill the gaps caused by loss and damage to our mercantile fleets. Taking into account the many tasks which have had to be carried out during the last 10 months, there is no reason to be ashamed of the contributions which have been made by way of delivery of completed new merchant ships, the aggregate tonnage of the ships which have been repaired, the acquisition by purchase of foreign tonnage through the Ministry of Shipping, and the support of our own building programme by orders placed abroad for new ships.
The Government have, however, fully in mind both the vital importance and the urgency of expediting still further the output of repaired tonnage, of new tonnage and the expansion of building abroad. The provision of increased. labour forces required for the work in this country has been a problem, but I am indebted to my colleague, the Minister of Labour, for the effort he is making in this direction, I am confident that the measure of agree-


ment he has secured from both employers and workers, details of which he will deal with himself on the proper occasion, will give us an expansion of production in the fields I have indicated and enable us to maintain our vital supplies, especially during the period in which the major programme of overseas building is being developed.
As a further contribution to the maintenance of our shipping position, the Admiralty salvage organisation has been considerably expanded during the past year. The total tonnage rescued and saved up to 31st December last was over 1,000,000 tons, and in some cases, where the ships themselves could not be recovered, cargo and valuable equipment have been saved. The number of salvage vessels available is nearly twice what it was a year ago, and more are being obtained, whilst the number of salvage officers has increased accordingly. I am pleased to say that all the salvage firms are co-operating wholeheartedly and efficiently with the Admiralty organisation, and that in accordance with Admiralty policy their resources have also been augmented.
The House will realise from what I have already said that this has been a strenuous year in the fields both of operations and production. At the same time, we have also had to press forward in the sphere of administration, and there are a number of measures which I should like to mention in passing. Firstly, we have recognised the growing importance of motor craft by appointing a flag officer specially to co-ordinate and superintend the maintenance and development of our greatly increased motor flotillas and the training of their crews.
In the field of research I am very much indebted to the Director and his Department for the good work which they have done, always in close collaboration with the naval officers who represent those who will use the new devices. Co-operation has also been maintained with a large number of scientists not in Admiralty employ, and with the private firms and we have not hesitated to seek specialist assistance when the occasion demanded. I must specially mention the late Professor Haigh, of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, who, unfortunately, recently passed

away and whose advice on many problems has been of outstanding value. Those who have had to deal with the answer to the magnetic mine will never forget his service. To strengthen still further this co-operation between the Research Department, outside scientists and the Navy itself, we have decided to set up a scientific advisory panel, under the chairmanship of the Director of Scientific Research, composed of two eminent scientists and two specially selected naval officers.
We have also made two changes affecting the recruitment of naval officers and their advancement. On the one hand, the prospects of the best officers will, I submit, be materially improved by the decision to make promotion to flag rank by selection from the top five years of the captains' list, instead of by the old method. On the other hand, there is the new scheme of scholarships at Dartmouth which I announced a fortnight ago. This I had intended to explain, but I believe it would be better not to do so in order to give more time to the House. There has been very strong support from the country and very little criticism indeed.
So far I have dealt with ships, strategy operations and administration. But let us not forget the cornerstone on which our sea power is built—the officers and men of the Navy and its sister Service of equal importance and merit, the Merchant Navy. I have referred to the qualities required of officers and men—endurance, resolution, resource, devotion to duty, unflagging vigilance in all the routine details of the profession of the sea. Apart from constant risk, shared in the fullest measure by our merchant crews, men afloat often have to put up with cramped quarters, discomfort, days and nights of toil with little sleep and long separation from their homes and families. We do all we can to even out the rough with the smooth and to see that leave is given as freely as possible. But sea warfare is not a business that can be organised into set periods and a fixed routine. Dispositions cannot be made subject only to the wishes of those who look after the welfare of the personnel. The imperious demands of our widespread responsibilities and the changing strategical position must be met. We try to see that mails reach and leave ships or distant stations as rapidly and as often as possible; but the best organisa-


tion for forwarding mails cannot always keep pace with the lightning changes in dispositions which in the circumstances of active operations are inevitable.
My hon. Friend the Civil Lord will deal later in the Debate with these and our other labours for the comfort and welfare of the men. What I have said of the hardships of service afloat underlines the debt of gratitude owed to the men who man our ships, whether of the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy. That the sea still exercises its immemorial hold upon the British race is shown by the fact that there are to-day far more men wishing to enter the Navy than we can accept. Those who are entered apply themselves wholeheartedly to their new profession, and the formidable task of training the large numbers required for the great expansion of the Navy which has taken place and still continues is considerably eased by the zeal and keenness of the new material. I wish the House could have heard a talk which I had last week with a young man who 12 months ago was a first-class window-dresser in a dry goods store. He had entered on the lower deck, and then after going through His Majesty's Ship "King Alfred," was commissioned as a sub-lieutenant R.N.V.R., commanded a drifter and sank an E-boat in a few weeks, has been promoted to command a trawler, and is now undertaking a regular and dangerous patrol. That is evidence of the call of the sea in the blood of our people.
Nevertheless, I am sure the House will agree that praise is due to the Second Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Charles Little, and to all who work under him, and to the drafting officers, for the way in which every demand for new crews has been met, not only for the larger ships but also for the innumerable small craft which have been brought into service for mine-sweeping, anti-invasion patrols and similar services. This is a great achievement especially if it is remembered that the general shortage of skilled labour has affected the Navy as it has affected every Service connected with the war. The personnel Departments have had to cope not only with the expected but with the unexpected, for instance, when the United States came to our aid in the autumn of last year with the welcome gift of 50 destroyers. I am proud to say that not one of these vessels had to delay its departure

from Halifax for lack of a crew to bring it across the Atlantic to the waters where the battle for the survival of the democratic idea is being fought out.
This brings me to one of the outstanding features not merely of our naval war but of our struggle as a whole. It is true that in one sense the British Commonwealth of Nations is waging this war almost alone, but in spirit and in various material directions, we are receiving invaluable assistance throughout the world from men who value freedom. The United States, where a great people have developed in the New World the ideals of representative government conceived in the Old, have already given the most positive evidence of their determination to ensure that those ideals are not trampled to death. Of the destroyers which in our hour of greatest need they handed over to us, some have already delivered attacks on enemy submarines and yet others have, in the course of their escort duties, borne their part in the rescue of British seamen, victims of enemy attacks. American aircraft are now in service with the Fleet Air Arm, and many more are yet to come. During the course of the year we shall receive from America great reinforcements of ordnance and stores which will go to swell the fighting power of our Fleet.
The peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations have given unstinted support in the war at sea. Canadian destroyers are taking no mean share in the vital task of protecting our seaborne trade across the North Atlantic. Australian cruisers and destroyers and New Zealand cruisers have participated, with great distinction and success, in the operations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, as well as in the protection of most important trade and military convoys. The names of "Achilles" and "Leander"—and of "Sydney," "Perth," "Hobart," "Australia" and "Canberra"—have been indelibly written in the most stirring pages of the history of the Navies of the British Commonwealth of Nations. South African naval units are also making a very welcome contribution in the Mediterranean, and the small, but efficient, Royal Indian Navy is doing valuable patrol work in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Dominions and Colonies in general—sometimes we forget to men-


tion the Colonial Empire, but they have helped us a great deal—have lent invaluable aid by the raising of local naval forces, by the conversion of merchant ships into naval auxiliaries, by fitting the defensive armament of merchant ships, by naval shipbuilding, and by sending us some of their finest men to help man the British Fleet. I was particularly impressed on a recent visit of inspection to those most hardy craft the minesweepers to find there sturdy seamen from Newfoundland.
Just as the free men of our own blood have pressed forward to help us, so those of our Allies who love freedom best and could escape the Nazi clutches have also joined us in our struggle. Side by side with the British Navy, there are fighting to-day naval contingents of Free France, of Poland, Holland and Norway. I cannot betray the strengths of those contingents, but they are a most useful reinforcement, and one which is steadily expanding. All are anxious to take an ever greater part in the war, and to come to grips with the enemy. All have suffered losses in the common cause, many of them in operations of the most hazardous kind. When they have lost a ship, their one desire has been to obtain another in replacement without delay, in order that their flag may be kept flying at sea, and their contribution to the fight not diminished. Nor has the effort of the Allied contingents been limited to the manning of their own warships and the warships placed at their disposal by the Royal Navy. Whenever possible, they have given men to man His Majesty's ships, or Allied ships, and the Merchant Navy. The Belgians, in particular, having no naval vessels of their own, have come forward to help in this way, and I am glad to say that there is now a Belgian section of the Royal Navy. Similarly, the Allies are affording the aid of their highly important merchant fleets to the common cause.
Before I leave this subject I wish to pay tribute, as I know the House would wish me to do, to the valiant fight waged by the small but heroic and efficient Greek Navy. The whole of the world that remains free has been moved and heartened by the exploits of the Greek submarines, which have sought out the enemy in the mine-infested waters of the Adriatic and torpedoed

Italian transports within sight of the very bases for which they were making. Nor shall we forget the service they rendered in facilitating the rapid mobilisation of the Greek Army—without which the Greek Army's fight would not have been so successful.
In our solemn hour of national testing, we find the Royal Navy bearing an immense responsibility. This is no new thing. So it was when the Spanish' Armada threatened our coasts, but Howard and Drake were there to repel it. So it was in the days of Dutch naval ascendancy, and a man from my own county, Blake, arose and gave England her victories. So it was when the legions of Napoleon spread like locusts over Europe, and his Fleets lay off the shores of France, seeking an opportunity to invade us. Then the cool directing brain of Barham and the fiery fighting skill of Nelson brought us through.
To-day, many of our dangers are similar in character, but modern forms of warfare and the twentieth-century element of speed make our task of once again resisting a Continental oppressor and defending liberty far more complex. But as has been demonstrated by the Army in the Middle East, by the Royal Air Force over these Islands, and, I submit, by the day-to-day exploits of the Royal Navy, the spirit is the same as ever, and the leadership in no way inferior to that of the past.
I desire to pay my tribute to the courage, the wisdom and the skill of the First Sea Lord and his Staff, to that great Sea Captain, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, to Admiral of the Fleet Sir Charles Forbes, and the Commanders-in-Chief on all stations, for the services which they have rendered and continue to render. All of them, with the loyalty and devotion of the men serving under them, will prove again that the path of duty is the way to glory, but their greatest glory, and the greatest reward of the whole Fleet, will be the day when victory is ours and Freedom, now in chains in Europe, will once more hold up her head.

Mr. Ammon: The House, I am sure, will wish to pay tribute to the First Lord for the forceful manner in which he has presented so thrilling an account of the stewardship of the Royal Navy. All of us are glad to acknowledge the great debt that this


country owes to the Navy for its unsleeping vigilance, its courage, its devotion and its skill. In that, it yields nothing to the glories of the past; and to our rapidly-growing and fascinating body of naval history, as the First Lord has reminded us, new pages are being written by our Dominions and by our Colonies. The First Lord spoke of the tremendous developments that are taking place, not only through the skill of the seaman and of the artificer and of those in the dockyards, but also through the skill of those in the laboratories, who are vigilantly and unceasingly endeavouring to counteract the machinations and inventions of the enemy, and to provide further methods of defence for our own country. The very mention of the name of Professor Haigh should recall to us that we are sometimes very remiss in acknowledging our indebtedness to those people, who have done so much. The solution of the magnetic mine problem occupied the Germans for years, and they did not find it. It took our scientists days, and they were then able to save us from a dreadful danger. 'However long this nation lasts, our debt to the men of the Royal Navy and to the men of the Merchant Service cannot be repaid. To these men there are no memorials, except the memorials that are in the hearts of the people themselves, who have been preserved in safety during these difficult times.
The Votes of expenditure that are before us are token Votes; x represents the total. No one will grudge for a moment any amount spent upon this sure shield of our defence; the First Lord has told us how sure it is and how much it has done for us. I hope that if, here and there, one raises what may seem to be the voice of criticism, my right hon. Friend will not resent it. Sometimes I think he is rather inclined to do that, and I can quite understand it. He is representing a very gallant and fine Service, and one might sometimes think it a little ungracious if here and there, there is a point of criticism. The criticism does not show a want of devotion and thanks to the Navy, but rather that the House is anxious to perform its duty to these gallant officers and men by seeing that they are properly protected and provided with all that is essential and necessary to enable them to discharge their great task. That is why I differed somewhat from the

First Lord of the Admiralty when he tried to show the difference between the meetings of this Parliament and that of the Reichstag. They have quite different methods and systems altogether. We take the view that there is added strength behind our methods of being able to discuss things, because we have the good will of the whole of the people behind us. It shows that we are a free nation and a free Navy and that our people are unremitting in their desire to see that all is done that is necessary for their comfort and safety.
There are some things which have been raised once or twice in this House of which the First Lord has told us something, yet there are occasions when one wonders whether a little more frankness may not have been very much more helpful to us and the nation, in order to meet some of the difficulties with which we are confronted. I will run over some of the outstanding things. Many of them are old history. It must not be thought for a moment that I am ignoring or minimising in any way the glorious feats, such as those at Taranto, the River Plate and other places. Everyone will give full testimony to these, and I for one would not yield one iota, even to the First Lord himself, in my admiration, gratitude and thanks for the services that have been rendered. But there are one or two things such as the Scapa Flow incident, the loss of the "Royal Oak" and the mystery surrounding the loss of the ''Glorious." I have sent the First Lord letters from people whose relatives went down, because these people are very disturbed concerning the loss of men in that ship. There is the muddle of Dakar, the escape of three French cruisers through the Straits of Gibraltar, and our own Intelligence Service with regard to Norway. The House has a right to expect some explanation to be given with regard to these matters.
There is a growing disquiet in the increase in the toll of sinkings of merchant shipping The First Lord indicated that there had been some falling off in these losses, but he also said that he did not lay claim that the whole diminution of the sinkings was due to methods we had adopted to counteract these sinkings. I think that we should be able to obtain a better perspective if we could be given an idea of the proportion of the sinkings


to the shipping afloat and the amount of shipping on the high seas. That is what I imagine the First Lord meant when he said that he could not wholly ascribe this diminution to the methods of defence.

Mr. Alexander: That may have been my modesty.

Mr. Ammon: I am sure that everyone recognises that modesty is an outstanding attribute of the First Lord, but I am equally sure that he would not by his modesty wish in any way to depreciate the merits of the Navy itself. One has the right to draw the conclusion that, in order to give a better understanding and appreciation of what the diminution means we ought also to know the tonnage on the high seas. I have been interested—and I have mentioned this in a former Debate —in looking up the past records of Debates in this House in 1917, when the late Sir Edward Carson, afterwards Lord Carson, was the First Lord of the Admiralty. He opened his speech on one occasion by saying that he for one felt that the fullest information ought to be given to the House, and that it was simply nonsense to think that the enemy did not know as much as we did with regard to these things. I will not carry this any further, but it is worth noting that that was the opinion of the First Lord at a time when things were not too easy for us at sea during the last war. I know that it may be said that times have altered since then.
I have received letters indicating a certain amount of disquiet and dissatisfaction with regard to questions affecting the higher command, and one has the right to ask who has been responsible for some of the admitted failures to which I have already drawn attention? One was admitted by the Prime Minister himself when First Lord of the Admiralty. Somebody was to blame for the disaster at Scapa Flow, but we have not heard whether anybody has been disciplined for it. We have the right to ask whether the persons responsible for any of these things are still in the same positions and may, therefore, be likely to be responsible for similar trouble in the future. That can give away nothing, and it would, at least, go a long way to hearten the people to know that there is a strict vigilance kept with regard to these things.
I now wish to touch upon something very delicately, and to put it in the way of seeking such information as the First Lord feels that it is safe and proper to give. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), a few days ago, called attention to a report in American newspapers of the heavy sinkings of ships in a convoy, and the First Lord answered him by saying that it was enemy propoganda and was an exaggerated statement. The subsequent reports that have come in prove that the numbers of the sinkings were exaggerated, but they have also demonstrated that the convoy was unescorted, and that is a serious matter indeed. One gathers, even from what the First Lord has said just now, that the new construction turned out from the yards has not been all that could be expected, and that our merchant ships still have to run considerable risk in crossing the seas because they are not having that escort and protection that we all hoped they would be able to get. I want to ask my right hon. Friend a question which I asked at Question time some time ago, and which I only repeat because it has been put to me by people who are serving. Everyone welcomes the construction of the new small ships—the corvettes—that are being turned out to counter the U-boat menace. I am told that it is one thing to be able to chase U-boats and another to catch them up, and one wonders whether these ships are fast enough to meet the menace of the new U-boats that are being turned out. A simple assurance from the First Lord will be ample, but I have had information from two or three people serving in these ships that things are not all that we might expect with regard to the speed of these particular vessels.

Mr. Alexander: Speed is very important, and we should hope to get increased speed if we can, but we should also get a far smaller output of vessels if we went on turning out ships of higher power. I would point out that even to-day His Majesty awarded decorations to men of two of these ships for actual "kills" of submarines.

Mr. Ammon: I hope my right hon. Friend does not think I am suggesting for a moment any lack of gallantry or skill on the part of the officers of these ships. Neither am I suggesting that they will not sometimes catch and destroy


U-boats, but I think my right hon. Friend has rather conceded a point I have just made. Evidently these ships. are not fast enough to meet the menace of the U-boat.
To come to another point, the First Lord announced some time ago—and he referred to it to-day—the new Dartmouth scholarships which have broken through what might be described as the caste system in the officer class. Everybody hopes that they will develop with the increasing range of educational standards. I wonder, however, whether he could also make greater use of some of the material which has already resulted from some scholarships, such as the Whitworth scholarships. I have a bulky volume here which gives the list of very distinguished people who have been holders of Whitworth scholarships. Men have gone through the yards and engineering shops and then, having displayed their ability, have been turned out into the world, with the result that the Admiralty and the Navy have not had the services of men they might have used. Some of the leading men of this country have won Whitworth scholarships and are proud to signify the same by putting the appropriate letters after their name. During the last 18 months we ought to have had the help of these men; they ought not to be lost to the Service. This war might be won as much in the technical schools of the country as the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. More and more, greater demands are being made on the technical qualifications of our people.
At a time when the First Lord has broken down the "old school tie" system in the Navy, I feel that the differentiation between what are termed secondary schools, technical schools and trade schools can no longer be justified. They are entitled to be placed on an equal footing. So I hope that the First Lord will look into this question of Whitworth scholarships to see whether something can be done to break down the differentiation which exists between the engineering and naval sides. With the development of the Service, greater demands on the engine-room and the growth of mechanisation in the Navy, these old naval differentiations ought to be abolished and brought more into unity of purpose and design, each and all recognising that in these matters, as in others, the nation

must move forward on the same plane. I do not want to say any more; one is naturally handicapped at a time like this and does not want to criticise too much, although I frankly admit that I do not see very much to criticise. I regret that there was not a bigger House to hear the fine, stirring statement made by the First Lord, which will hearten the country. We are all proud of the men who go down to the sea in ships, in both the Royal Navy and Merchant Service, each of which is caught up in the defence of our nation, and nothing we can say or do will ever repay the debt we owe to them for their devotion, skill, bravery and courage.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I must congratulate my right hon. Friend for the stirring tribute he paid to the work of the Navy. No one is better able than I am to appreciate the magnitude of the task which confronts the Admiralty and His Majesty's sea services from day to day in the maintenance of the sea communications on which the life of Great Britain and that of our Army and Royal Air Force overseas depend. I do not think it is generally appreciated that, apart from the troops and personnel which are carried overseas, an immense quantity of supplies has to be carried in merchant ships, guarded by the Navy, for the two sister Services.
The First Lord paid a glowing tribute to the Navy's offensive spirit. It burns in the Navy and is spoiling to express itself. He told us what had been achieved lately in the Mediterranean and by our submarines throughout the war. During the last few months I have been in contact with a splendid body of young officers and men of the Navy and Army, including a number of young men from civil life who have the call of the sea in their blood. The First Lord described to-day the feats of one of such men. Some time ago, at the beginning of 1918, I had between 70 and 80 of these men under my command. I do not think any of them had seen much war. They were young stockbrokers, bank clerks, wine merchants and the like, who had spent their holidays in small craft. I should like to mention that they were led by a very gallant Member of Parliament who will be remembered by some hon. Members present—Ian Hamil-


ton Benn. He was always in the forefront of every action. Within four months these young men had won three Victoria Crosses, six or seven Distinguished Service Orders, and about a dozen Distinguished Service Crosses. Many of the young men with whom I have been working are the sons of those people and are spoiling for an opportunity of doing what their fathers did. On behalf of these young soldiers and sailors, I should like to say how ardently they envy their brothers in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and how eagerly they are straining at the leash to emulate their deeds, and to prove that they are ready to face death as contemptuously as their brothers in the Royal Air Force do day after day and night after night. The dangers and difficulties which loom so large in Whitehall to those who have the responsibility of launching an offensive disappear, in the case of those who have to carry it out, in the glory of the goal beyond. I can only say that when they are given their opportunity—and it will come—the country will not be disappointed.

Captain Meriden: I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the First Lord on his very stirring and vigorous speech. That is what we had expected from him, and that is what we got. It was particularly interesting to some hon. Members who, like myself, have for years past been asking for the ships, the men, and the equipment. We were not always supported and sometimes we were opposed. We were told that if the Government's foreign policy was right, there would be no need for these armaments. I hope that now hon. Members and the country realise that we cannot have a strong foreign policy unless we have strong Armed Forces and, in particular, a strong Navy. Our foreign policy, such as it was, came up against the foreign policy of a determined country that was organising and equipping itself for one purpose—the defeat of the British Empire. The First Lord has told us of the steps that are being taken to frustrate that attempt. When peace again comes to us, and all the Left wingers get busy— the pacifists, the Penguins, the Priestleys, the peace ballots, and that lot—I hope the First Lord will remember his brave words, and repeat them again.
I want to raise two small matters, one of which I have mentioned already to the First Lord. My right hon. Friend announced recently the introduction of the Dartmouth Scholarships. I hope he will give up the use of the word "scholarship" "Cadetship" is the proper word. There have been Colonial Cadet-ships and King's Cadetships in the past; let my right hon. Friend think of some word to describe the present type of cadet-ship. When making that announcement, my right hon. Friend said that the midshipman could live solely on his pay. I am doubtful of that. Knowing more or less who are the First Lord's advisers, I would not dare to make any criticism of the admirals' point of view on certain subjects, but on the question of midshipmen, I think I am just as qualified—if not more qualified—to speak. There may be people who think that it is unnecessary to change a scheme that has produced officers of the sort to whom so many glowing and well-earned compliments have been paid to-day. These people may persist in their attitude, but as the new scheme has been launched, I can assure the First Lord that everybody will endeavour to make it a success.
The question is whether the midshipmen will be able to live the same life as other officers on their pay. I say "no." I assume that the intention is to grant these cadetships to young gentlemen whose parents cannot afford to help them otherwise. Therefore, they will have to go through their time not being able to live the same life as their contemporaries. I do not think hon. Members want such a position to arise. It is true we have been promised that they will start off with full equipment of uniform. I have a clear recollection of my time as a midshipman, although is "how some years ago. We received is. 9d. a day, less 3d. which we very reluctantly paid to our naval instructor. Our parents had to give £50 a year. Together, these two sums are practically the same as the amount which a midshipman gets at present. In those days we went to sea at a very early age; I was at sea shortly after I was 15. These young men will go to sea two years later. In those days our midshipman's pay was enough for our simple, childish, innocent amusements. Now we live in a much more sophisticated age; these young men want motor bicycles, golf clubs, and so on. I cannot help thinking that the First


Lord would willingly grant the money if he thought it necessary.

Mr. Alexander: Since my hon. and gallant Friend raised this matter with me, I have made a number of inquiries, not, I beg him to believe, of flag officers, but of younger officers. The majority of them, although not all of them, assured me that they were able to live on their pay as midshipmen. I do however promise that the matter shall be revised in the light of circumstances and our experience of the scheme, and that I will consider what steps should be taken when the time came for these young men to become sublieutenants. I think the matter might be left there.

Captain Marsden: That is very reassuring. I am glad that the First Lord has made that statement. I had views of these young men going home after three years abroad and, instead of being referred to as young officers of His Majesty's Navy, being referred to as members of Alexander's Ragtime Band.
There is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. It is a matter which, as a serving officer, I could raise by means of letters to admirals; if I did so, probably several admirals would be asked their opinions, the matter would be considered by the Board, and eventually some decision might be arrived at. I propose to take advantage of my position here to short circuit all that, and bring the matter to my right hon. Friend's attention now. It is the question of commissioned warrant officers. We have had certain schemes of promotion to commissioned rank in the Navy, and on the whole they have not been very successful. Although some good officers have emerged, the schemes have never quite risen to the hopes of those who sponsored them. But one method has always been successful, and that is the promotion of warrant officers to commissioned rank. I am referring only to the retired list and not the active list. These men have been called out of their retirement, and all the seniority which might have been accruing to them on the retired list is not allowed to count. I do not suppose there is one of these officers serving who is not thoroughly appreciated by those senior to him. They have in the warrant officer promoted to commissioned rank someone on whom they can absolutely rely. But

with whom is he working? He is working with officers who are given a commission immediately. It is true that now every effort is made to give commissions to those who have been through the lower deck for a very short period, but they are promoted to be lieutenant in a very short period, too, and sometimes higher up than that. On the other hand, the stout old commissioned officers can get no seniority.
What I ask is this. In the calling-up of retired officers, there are many officers of senior rank who have to serve in a rank below, but receive the pay of a higher rank. So long as they are receiving the pay, they are not bothering much about the stripes on their arms—the pay is more important. I am asking for the exact opposite. I am asking that these men be promoted either to lieutenants or lieutenant-commanders on the recommendation of their admirals but that they retain the pay to which they are entitled in the lower ranks. There is no money attaching to this scheme. Perhaps the First Lord will think it over. He will do a lot of good to a deserving group of men if he can bring that about. I had already noted a reference to hostility officers and men. The First Lord stated that he saw one at the Admiralty who was a window-dresser. Hostility officers who can get into the Admiralty and see the First Lord are pretty lucky, and I endorse all that he has said. Some think they are lucky if they can see even me. One acting A.B. whom I saw last week was a tea-taster, but that did not stop him bringing down a couple of aeroplanes. I, personally, interview a lot of these men and recommend them for commissions. We follow them up pretty closely, and they are proving very successful indeed.
I should now like to refer to shipbuilding and ship-repairs, for which the Admiralty is responsible. I see a great deal of this work, but I fear I shall be out of Order if I raise all the points that I desire to mention on this subject. I understand they come under the purview of the Minister of Labour—the conditions in which some of the workers are employed. I assure the First Lord that he needs to keep his eye on the Minister of Labour, who has been speaking a lot and making a lot of statements. In many cases the Minister of Labour is not helping to accelerate the work in the yards. I will mention only one point which cropped up recently. They talk about


men going back promptly when the siren sounds, but the siren does not sound, and they are not allowed to sound, with the result that there is a loss of a few minutes. A certain type of man who should knock off at 12 will not finish five minutes afterwards but five minutes before. One well-known yard which I recently visited plays gramophone records at the end of the dinner hour, and the tune it was playing at that time was, "Will ye no' come back again?" I hope that I may have an opportunity to raise these points with the Minister of Labour, but somehow or other Members like myself seldom seem to be called upon to speak on these subjects. There are many points which I recommend the First Lord to follow up very closely. Another year has passed, and no corner has been turned. I do not suppose any corner will be turned, because it is a straight and a long, slogging road. The great secret if you have a long march is always to march within your strength, and that is what we are doing. We are getting stronger and stronger every minute, and when we come to the journey's end I am sure the Navy will have played its full part in bringing that about.

Mr. Liddall: Like the three previous speakers, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the First Lord for the speech he has made. It is a speech which will be read with the widest satisfaction by the general public and by all ranks in the Service. I wish to take this opportunity of stressing the importance of Naval Reserves in war-time, and in supporting the statement of the First Lord in regard to the urgent need for ships and still more ships to bring the vital supplies of food and munitions required by this country. The House will know that the Naval Reserves do not exist as a separate body in time of war. On mobilisation their numbers are incorporated into the Fleet. The nucleus of Reserves in war-time must be built up in peace-time. That being so, every form of Naval Reserve and Volunteer Reserve, not only in this country but throughout the Empire, should have every encouragement from the authorities now and always. We have heard to-day from the First Lord encouragements which are being, given at the present time. It is Admiralty policy to give temporary
R.N.V.R. commissions to all Reserve ratings and those entered under National Service Acts deemed fit for promotion from the lower deck. At the beginning of the war on account of their greater experience R.N.R. officers were naturally sent to reinforce the Fleet. All R.N.V.R. executive officers and temporary R.N.R. officers are now permitted to join the submarine service, which was hitherto restricted, to permanent R.N.R. officers— some R.N.R. officers are already serving as second-in-command and will, in the course of time, be in full command.
Officers and men of the R.N.R. are nearly all in peace-time members of that matchless civil service, the Royal Merchant Navy. To-day I want to pay tribute to those other matchless men, the trawlermen, the driftermen and the bargemen of Britain. No finer or braver men exist than those men, in their cloth caps and weatherbeaten jerseys, who use the ports in my own county as well as in other counties of not so great importance. I appeal to the Admiralty, who, I believe, appreciate the great national importance of their work, to give them what their brothers in the Fighting Services receive in the direction of rewards. Recognition of service and war medals should be given to these maritime heroes on a scale comparable with that of the Royal Navy. The value of our sea-loving people was shown when our British Expeditionary Force was evacuated from Dunkirk. Even the eloquent words of our Prime Minister are inadequate to express our admiration and fine regard for their duty, which enabled destroyers, small naval craft, Mercantile Marine, lifeboats, civilian yachts and hosts of small boats to rescue our Army of over 300,000 from the shores of Dunkirk. As the First Lord has said, these small craft were not designed to evacuate an Army, and it was almost a miracle that success came our way. Without taking one ounce of credit from our Regular Forces in the Navy and Air Force, this evacuation was made possible by the fine seamanship of these Reserve seamen and others and those who handled the numerous small craft with such skill and daring.
I would also mention the Naval Reserves of several of our Colonies, notably that of our oldest Crown Colony, now a Dominion — Newfoundland — which has


sent some fine seamen to help the Mother country. These fishermen are a hardy race, used to the wildest of weather and the thickest of fog. The Dominions have indeed made a fine response in sending their seamen. But where are the superfine fisherfolk from Southern Ireland? They alone remain unhelpful in our hour of need. Surely the old music-hall song of thirty years ago, when the men of Southern Ireland were proud to serve under the British flag, might make some appeal to Southern Irishmen to-day. The chorus ran something like this:
Why do they call us hooligans, 
A name all Irishmen are proud of? 
Don't they know that they bring disgrace, 
Upon a noble name of a noble race?
Why do they call us hooligans, 
This seething, restless mob? 
Every true-born hooligan
Is an Irishman and a British soldier too.
The officers and men of the Naval Reserve are called upon to serve in all types of naval ships. Their gallant work in mine-sweeping, submarine hunting and fighting hostile aircraft is appreciated by all, and it is a remarkable achievement that so many enemy aircraft have been brought down by the crews of trawlers, minesweepers, etc. The accuracy of their gunfire has been astonishing. These men have most certainly obeyed Oliver Cromwell's instructions when facing considerable difficulties:
Spare not, but be expeditious and industrious. You must act lively. Do it without distraction. Neglect no means
These war orders from a great soldier have been carried out most successfully by our Naval Reserve and, for an outstanding example of skill and gallantry, I would remind the House of the exploits of Lieut.-Commander R. B. Stannard, R.N.R., the only surviving naval V.C. of this war. When enemy bombing attacks had set on fire many tons of hand grenades on Namsos Wharf, with no shore water supply available, Lieutenant Stannard ran "Arab's" bows against the wharf and held her there. Sending all but two of his crew aft he then endeavoured for two hours to extinguish the fire with hoses from the forecastle. He persisted with this work till the attempt had to be given up as hopeless. After helping other ships against air attacks, he placed his own damaged vessel under shelter of a cliff, landed his crew and those of two trawlers and established an armed camp. Here

those off duty could rest while he attacked enemy aircraft which approached by day, and kept anti-submarine watch during the night. When another trawler nearby was hit and set on fire by a bomb, he with two others, boarded "Arab" and moved her 100 yards before the other vessel blew up. Finally, when leaving the fjord, he was attacked by a German bomber, which ordered him to steer east or be sunk. He held on his course, reserved his fire till the enemy was within 800 yards, and then brought the aircraft down. Throughout a period of five days "Arab" was subjected to 31 bombing attacks, and the camp and Lewis gun positions ashore were repeatedly machine-gunned and bombed, yet the defensive position was so well planned that only one man was wounded. Lieut. Stannard ultimately brought his damaged ship back to an English port. His continuous gallantry in the presence of the enemy was magnificent, and his enterprise and resource not only caused losses to Germans but saved the ship and many lives. 
That is an account of the only V.C. R.N.R. officer in the present war. These trained and gallant men of our Naval Reserve will play an important part in any attempted invasion. It is not impossible for the Nazis to make a landing in a light fog or mist, or under the protection of a smoke screen, on a calm, moonless night, which would be an advantage when the tide was high. Fortunately for all of us, these conditions do not often prevail in the precincts of our island shores, and, if they do, their duration is short. Wind velocities are very variable round our coasts, and it is seldom calm for long. Many people believe, as I do, that Hitler desires above everything else to destroy British power in Britain. That is no doubt true, but it is not a new idea. In 1852 Tennyson wrote these inspiring words:
Should he land here and for one hour
prevail,
There must no man go back to tell the tale. 
No man to hear it, 
Swear it! We swear it!
Although we fought the bonded world alone 
We swear to guard our own.
This celebrated poet's guidance is as applicable to-day as it was to our forefathers nearly 100 years ago. In repelling any attempted invasion, our Naval Reserves will be full out to play their part.


Are we doing everything possible to ensure that they have the ships? The Government were wise in the early days of 1939 to encourage shipbuilders to lay down more ships, and about 100 keels were immediately laid. When we consider that about 120,000,000 tons of cargoes entered through our ports in peace time every year, we see how serious the U-boat campaign may be for us. Germany knows it would be easier to starve the people of Great Britain than to invade Great Britain. That is why she is concentrating on her U-boat campaign. That is also why we want plenty of reserves in the way of both ships and men What are the Government doing about all this? It was heartening to hear the Prime Minister say on 5th November, and to hear the First Lord emphasise it to-day, that the fleet of American destroyers is rapidly coming into service.
Have we told America that what we require even more urgently than aeroplanes and money are ships, and still more ships? Are the Government satisfied that the naval advice at present being accepted as to how to handle the position is the best available? Is the provision of A.A. batteries to enable our ships to keep off the bomber being accelerated? In view of the admitted danger of our war effort failing for lack of ships, are the Government taking steps to see that every man in the Fighting Services who is a skilled shipyard man, boilermaker or engineer, is being sent back to the place where his services are absolutely essential for the building of our ships? Can the Government give an assurance that every shipyard in the country where keels can be laid are in full use? If there is a single shipyard not being utilised because of the lack of shipwrights and other skilled labour will the Government give an assurance that this will be rectified at once? If there is a shortage of steel or other raw material will they see that ships shall have priority over every other form of war material, not excluding aircraft? We must have more ships and more armed ships, for the sinking of ships involves much more than the loss of vessels and cargo, however valuable they may be. More often than not they take men down with them, men whose courage and endurance are more valuable to this country are the present time than much fine gold.
It is a grim ordeal that our magnificent seamen are facing at all hours and in all weathers. They are subject to attack not only from the air, but on and under the sea. They have not in the majority of 1 cases, like their naval brothers, the satisfaction of striking back, nor, like their shore-going compatriots, do they receive notice, brief though it may be, of coming danger. At any time an enemy aircraft may come diving down without warning to attack, and at any instant, day or night, a torpedo may blast a gaping hole into a ship's side. Our seamen know that unless the food and munitions which our ships are bringing can arrive in sufficient quantities we must collapse and they will carry on as long as there is a single ship left for them to sail. I want to refer to the question of using coal instead of oil whenever and wherever possible. I cannot put it more concisely or effectively than it was put by Mr. Geoffrey Bowles in a letter published in yesterday's "Daily Sketch." He wrote:
Foreign oil can be largely replaced by. our own coal, but food which we cannot grow ourselves cannot be replaced by anything else. All possible ships and vehicles should be converted to or be built for oil. Many oil bunkers—only able to carry one commodity one way on one route—should now be converted, as they could be, into general purpose ships—able to carry anything anywhere on any route. Those converted would carry at least twice as many cargoes, and of goods more essential to us than oil. We may soon be faced with the choice between oil and famine and defeat, or coal and food and victory.
I say to the Government with all the sincerity and emphasis of which I am capable that the chief problem confronting us is unquestionably the grave menace to our shipping, and unless satisfactory answers can be given to the questions I have put to the Government, then notwithstanding how well they are doing, they cannot claim to be doing their best.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Considering how careful the First Lord has to be in any public utterances that he makes in the House, his speech was both interesting and heartening. I was rather surprised though at an answer that he gave to a question of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). The hon. Member asked whether the corvettes that are being made in fairly large numbers were fast enough for their purpose of catching the latest


and speediest enemy submarines. The First Lord interjected and replied that if we were to have more speed, we would not be able to have the mass production which he considered was necessary. I consider that to be a somewhat surprising reply, because what is the good of building these fast, small ships if they do not meet the purpose for which they are being constructed, which is the catching of all types of enemy submarines? No doubt ray hon. Friend on the Front Bench will elucidate that matter later on.
I was recently in Portugal, and while I was there I obtained some naval information that may possibly be of interest to this House. It is already officially known, has been known for a long time past, that the Germans have been concentrating their naval construction on submarines, to the exclusion practically of all other naval vessels, and they have been doing this since the beginning of the war. In Germany and in German-occupied countries there are innumerable bases that are suitable for the building of submarines, and they are being employed at the present time at full capacity for building a new type of submarine, the new simplified submarine that Hitler hinted at in his last speech. It was my American informant in Portugal, who had just come from Germany, who told me what was meant by this word "simplified." At the time I considered that what he told me was improbable, but as events nave turned out I consider that to-day it is more than probable, and I feel in consequence that the House should hear this first-hand definition.
This simplified form of submarine that is being turned out in mass production amounts to this: It is nothing more or less than a suicide craft. It is quick and cheap to build, small, and is being equipped with only the very essential machinery. Safety devices, I am informed, are practically non-existent. Of course, such simplicity means simplifying, and consequently shortening, the training of crews. I was further informed that each of these submarines can be manned by a third of the crew that are usually to be found in even former small-size submarines. All this can be done because these new submarines have only a very small fuel capacity, for they are expected to go only as far as the coasts of our Islands, and they are not expected

to return. They are being manned by young, fanatical Germans, youthful volunteers of the death-or-glory breed. The principle is this, that having sighted their victim, they would go straight into close range and fire their torpedoes before the escorting ships had an opportunity of dealing with them, though, of course, their chance of subsequent escape would be negligible, that is to say, provided the victim was properly convoyed. As is already well known, submarines do not generally take the risk of attacking until they have manoeuvred for a position that will give them a good chance of getting away from the escorting ships.
Providing the enemy have enough of these "suicide craft," and providing they have enough crews to man such craft, undoubtedly the menace is going to be a grave one, and I think we should consider means of bringing food into this country other than by sea, should our stock be getting dangerously low as a result of serious shipping losses. I hope that no such emergency will arise, but as starvation, and consequent lowering of morale. is the only thing that can defeat us and can make successful invasion possible, I feel that no aspect of this problem should be overlooked and no preventive should be neglected. If serious damage is caused by submarine attack, it will, as everybody realises full well, be carried out during the coming spring. Our essential foods would hold out for several months and, as the First Lord pointed out today, by the end of the year many new ships would be well under way. Therefore, the critical period would be at the end of this coming Summer. That period, in the event of the crisis that I have envisaged—if such a crisis occurs—would be the zero hour, the psychological occasion for invasion, and I for one do not believe that it will occur before, if, indeed, it occurs then. It is no good invading a strongly fortified country when morale is as high as ours is at the present time.
How can we be sure of tiding over that period and importing sufficient food in the event of a temporary though a serious, shortage of shipping? On first consideration it would appear that if that occurred, we should be "up against it." But there is an answer, and that answer is air transport. As to how this could be done, I am afraid that if I attempted to pursue that subject on these Estimates, you, Mr.


Deputy-Speaker, would very rightly call me to Order, so I shall have to leave to another occasion the conveying to the House of what I consider to be an essential antidote, it not the only antidote, to possible successful enemy submarine blockade.

Mr. McLean Watson: The moving of Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates used to be the occasion for dockyard Members to air their grievance. I am afraid the war is having an effect even on the dockyard Members, but I am pleased to have an opportunity of intervening for a short time, and I am prepared to give the First Lord all the money for which he is asking for the purposes he has in view during the next 12 months. I listened with very great interest and very great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him upon the very excellent picture of the Navy that he presented to the House. He has shown us that despite our experiences during this war the Navy is still in first-class condition. We have had our losses, but our losses are being made good. The men in the shipbuilding yards and in the Royal Dockyards are doing magnificent work in repairing any damage that has been done during the war. When we read from time to time of certain naval losses we begin to get apprehensive as to whether they are not making serious inroads into the reserves of the Navy. We were very pleased to hear from the First Lord of the Admiralty that we are still in a very strong position with our destroyers. We have every reason to be proud of our Navy. It has stood up well to all the tasks allotted to it during the war, and we are confident that, no matter what comes against us in the future, the Navy will be equal to it.
We heard a lot of boasting before and in the early days of the war about what the German Fleet could do, but that Fleet has not troubled us very much, the surface craft, at any rate. We readily agree that the U-boats, on which the German Government have mainly relied, have caused grievous losses and a certain amount of damage to our shipping, but we are carrying on very well, in spite of it. The words of the First Lord respecting the Merchant Navy in this connection were very encouraging. We are capable of

standing up to all that has been put upon us, and we are confident in regard to the future.
While our Navy has achieved great things during the war, one or two other things are not so pleasant to contemplate, including the Narvik business and other incidents which were regrettable. We must be prepared, however, for things of that kind in war, when we are engaged with a very serious enemy whom we cannot treat lightly. Before Italy came into the war we were led to believe that she had a great fleet. Undoubtedly she had. She also had a great air force. For some reason, which we can leave to the Italians to determine, neither that navy nor that air force has come up to what we expected from the great preparations that the Italians made for war. We were not well prepared for war, because we were not seeking war, but we have done very well against one of our antagonists. We have a comparatively stiff task before we overcome the other, but we hope we shall see cracks before long in the facade which the German organisation still presents.
I am pleased to see the Civil Lord on the Front Bench, and I understand that he will reply to the Debate. Perhaps he will speak about one or two little matters that I wish to bring up. On previous Navy Estimates I have repeatedly drawn attention to the dockyard in which I am interested, and have been interested since I came to this House, namely, the dockyard in my constituency. In 1925, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that that dockyard should be reduced to a care-and-maintenance basis, and I did not admire the intelligence of that decision, but the Admiralty were out for economy. They were able to save a certain amount of money, but they did not give sufficient attention to the fact that they were closing one of the best dockyards. Shortly before the war the dockyard was taken off the care-and-maintenance basis and opened again, but too short a time was allowed for proper arrangements to be made for its development. The result was that a great deal had to be done in a hurry, and a considerable amount of inconvenience has been caused.
Accommodation has had to be found for thousands of dockyard workers. The Admiralty have done everything they could to meet the needs of the men who have to be brought into the dockyard, but very considerable inconvenience is


still being caused to the men employed there. If this dockyard had been allowed to develop from the state in which it was in 1925, we should not have been in the present position. There should have been a gradual development, including a system for housing the men employed in the dockyard. I have the greatest sympathy with the Admiral and his officers at the dockyard. They have had to tackle a most difficult job, but they have done it very well, considering, in addition to other things, the shortage of houses on both sides of the water. A great deal of credit is due to the Admiral and his officers, but everything is not yet as it should be. Housing accommodation is not adequate. Other Services have made demands upon the available accommodation, and this has complicated the difficulty of the task. I hope that, when we settle down again after the war and consider what to do with the resources at our disposal, a proper review will be made of the dockyard situation and that the same mistake will not be made as was made at the close of the last war. I hope this dockyard will not be reduced to a care-and-maintenance basis, after all the trouble and expense incurred since it was re-opened. The dockyard should be kept in commission.
I understand that a welfare officer has been appointed in connection with the arrangements that have been made at the dockyard and that a good job of work has been done in connection with the welfare of the dockyard men and the naval services. It was good to appoint an officer to attend to the welfare of men coming newly into the district and requiring advice and guidance. We have reason to congratulate ourselves on the present position, despite the fact that we are at war with such an enemy as our old enemy Germany. As I have already said, I believe that we shall overcome the enemy in due course. It may be a long and difficult path, but, at any rate, from the speech which we have heard, we have every reason to feel confident that we are going forward to victory.

WELFARE OF PERSONNEL.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, recognising the arduous conditions of service in seagoing ships and in remote bases of the Royal Navy and taking note of

the additional facilities to be provided for those desirous of entering upon a naval career through Dartmouth College, is of opinion that every endeavour should be made to promote the health and welfare of the officers and men concerned.
I desire to take the opportunity, which consideration of these Estimates provides, of drawing attention to the question of the welfare of the personnel. I wish that a larger number of my fellow Members were sufficiently interested in that important question and that they could have displayed that interest by their presence here. I would like it to be understood at the outset that the Amendment which appears under my name on the Paper has not been put down in any spirit of carping criticism. There is no sense of grievance or complaint behind it. There is, indeed, no undue concern. It must not be regarded as a symptom of dissatisfaction. It arises from a desire, which I believe is shared by probably the overwhelming majority of people in this country, that, as the Amendment states, there should be full recognition of
the arduous conditions of service in seagoing ships and in remote bases.
and that
every endeavour should be made to promote the health and welfare of the officers and men
concerned.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has, with justifiable pride, told the House of the truly magnified 1 part which the officers and men have been and are still playing in the protection and the maintenance of our lives and liberties. Stirring and encouraging as his story has been, we are conscious of the fact that it is necessarily limited by surrounding circumstances and that the conditions of warfare prevent him, as indeed he indicated, from saying some things in connection with the situation. Obviously, he cannot speak of many things, but he may be sure that so far as the great mass of the people are concerned there is no need for any special stimulant to induce either admiration for or a sense of deep indebtedness to the officers and men of the Navy for the great services which they are rendering to the country. On their courage and resource our existence to-day depends. Let us, therefore, not forget to discharge or be tardy in discharging our obligations to them. One of the best ways of contributing to their welfare and maintaining their morale is to


take such action as will relieve their minds of undue anxiety about those who are dependent upon them. On that aspect of the case I will take leave at a later stage to make some further comment.
I have spoken about the officers and men, and I suppose that most of us, in thinking of the Navy, will have men in mind, but we must remember that to-day there are Jills as well as Jacks in the Service. We must keep in mind the Women's Royal Naval Service, which in many directions is performing very useful work. Although, so far as I am informed, the women are not called upon to face peril afloat, they are by no means free from the hazards of war. There was a grim reminder of that fact in the casualty list issued by the Admiralty a few days ago, which contained the names of 10 of these gallant women who lost their lives at the post of duty and the names of a number of others who were wounded in similar circumstances. I hope that we may hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply that there is no less consideration in the matter of the welfare of the Jill "Wren" than there is for the Jack Tar.
It may perhaps be convenient for all concerned in this Debate if an attempt is made to define what we have in mind when we speak of welfare. I accordingly select the following, which, while not necessarily an exclusive list, will yet, I think, be found to be sufficiently comprehensive. The subjects which I have included under the heading of "Welfare" will be: Living conditions, food, consideration for dependants and relatives, leave, recreation, education and additional clothing and comforts. As regards the provision of comfortable living conditions, I anticipate—at least I hope that there will be no difficulty whatever in giving the necessary assurances as far as the men-of-war are concerned. Even with the increase in manning that war conditions impose, I imagine that no special difficulty arises there. But are adequate facilities provided for such essentials as the provision of dry clothing for men who face the stormy seas? A cosy cabin on a liner is uncomfortable enough to most people in an Atlantic gale. Our thoughts go out to the men who face the furies with the added dangers arising from war con-

ditions—the lurking mine and the cruel U-boat beneath the surface.
I have anticipated assurances as to comfortable living conditions on men-of-war, but what of the small ships—the veritable nerves of the Navy, as I have heard them described, whose invaluable contribution to the maintenance of British supremacy at sea we all so gladly acknowledge? I refer to the dangerous duty craft, as I think they are sometimes described—the anti-submarine trawlers, the minesweepers, the motor torpedo boats and what I believe are the latest of our naval scourges, the corvettes. I recognise, of course, that on these small vessels it is physically impossible to provide the comforts and amenities of the big ships, but everything possible should be done and every opportunity should be seized to effect improvement that experience has shown to be necessary to compensate the men on those boats because of their added discomforts. I believe I am correct in saying that, so far as the corvettes are concerned, already steps have been taken in that direction, and I am sure that I am speaking for the men employed on them when I say that that is fully appreciated.
These improvements should be embodied in the new boats which, we understand, are now being turned out so rapidly by the yards. From all I have heard, it would be richly deserved by those who are serving on the vessels. A friend of mine who has had experience of them told me that the discomforts were such that Icelandic fishermen were actually sick on them, and I think they are acknowledged by their colleagues in the Service to be tough fellows who man those ships. Yet —and this is a disturbing note—I understand that the men who cheerfully put up with all these discomforts are compensated with what is described as hard-lying money only to the extent of one-half of the amount which could be provided. The Admiralty would, I think, be well advised to reward the endurance of the corvette crews by a full measure of hard-lying money.
Now as to food. The House, I am sure, would value information as to the arrangements which are now in operation. I have never heard even a suggestion of insufficiency, but is there variety? Variety, they say, is the spice of life, and it certainly supplies an additional and


needed spice for the men who suffer the monotony of long cruises and service on men-of-war. What about the extras which individuals may purchase according to their taste? I am told that each mess provides its own food. Does that mean that the men have some voice in selecting or determining the menus which are provided? And here again the question of small craft arises. Is everything being done to ensure the regular provision of hot meals as far as possible for the men who are serving on the small craft? The difficulties arising from limitations of space are, of course, sufficiently obvious, but cooking in these days, by reason of the utilisation of electrically generated heat, has been lifted to a science. The men aboard these ships are entitled to all that science can provide.
That raises another question in relation to these small ships. Is there adequate cooperation between the various comforts committees for the Fleet? Two months ago there were, I am told, small ships which Santa Claus entirely forgot. I understand that one of them, an antisubmarine trawler which had played a noble part in the rescue of men from the troopship "Lancastria," was at sea on Christmas Day, and there was only one Christmas pudding for the whole of the men on the vessel. I am told that it was the one provided by the captain's wife, and that when it was shared out it amounted to just one spoonful per man. I mention this as I am sure the men concerned would desire it to be mentioned, not by way of reproach, but in order to express the hope that steps will be taken to provide against a recurrence of such circumstances, and I am confident that a request of that kind will not fall on deaf ears.
Now as to the position in regard to the relatives and dependants of the men. I believe I shall meet with general agreement in saying that nothing, not even good food and comfortable conditions for the man himself, contributes more towards his true welfare and to the maintenance of morale than the knowledge that his family or his dependants have enough to live on, that assistance will be forthcoming if they are in difficulties, and that if serious trouble develops means of communication will be provided for them. We shall all be familiar with what is described as the standard allowance for

wives, children and dependants. The State has recognised that frequently some supplement to this is necessary. I am told that the War Grants Advisory Committee, whose function it is to sanction financial assistance where necessary, admirable in many respects as it is, is not always as advisory as it might be. Should there not be some welfare section to which the wife, the mother or other dependant of a sailor could turn for sympathetic guidance when trouble arises? The man is afloat, away from contact, and no sense of undue loneliness should be allowed to afflict his kith and kin. I have heard of and readily pay tribute to the excellent work in this field of usefulness which is done by the Naval Wives and Families Association. But such activities should not be left to voluntary agencies alone.
As to the question of leave, this undoubtedly involves difficulty in the case of naval men, at any rate so far as prescribed scales are concerned. Operational requirements are bound to govern allowances, and in this the senior Service men are frequently at a disadvantage as compared with their contemporaries in the Army and the Air Force. This should mean—I hope and believe that we shall hear that it does mean—that special consideration will be given wherever leave, long or short, is possible. It should also mean that generous travelling facilities in the shape of free warrants are also provided. It may be, of course, that active service imposes restrictions which may make a journey impossible for the man himself. In such circumstances, would it not be possible to arrange for a man's wife or mother to visit him? Recently, 1 have seen very favourable comment on the hostels for wives which have been established at certain military garrisons. Could something along those lines be done for our sailormen?
This question of leave raises another question in regard to the crews of small ships. After their period at sea—a corvette is, I believe, at sea for 10 or 12 days—the men return dirty and unshaven because of the limited facilities provided for them on their craft. There ought to be baths and dressing rooms provided by the authorities; the men ought not to be dependent on Service clubs or benevolent institutions for such requirements. I will not take up the time of the House by commenting at length upon the desira-


bility of the generous provision of recreational and educational facilities, or upon the need for providing additional clothing for special tasks, or upon the provision of extra comforts. Much can be done today to relieve monotony that a few years ago was quite impossible—the provision of radio sets, cinemas, theatrical entertainments, games and books, in the selection of which the men should have a voice, and also the provision of canteens ashore. I am on common ground in claiming that everything that is practicable should be done in this direction. The moral value of it will be incalculable.
Finally, may I express the hope that the reference to the Dartmouth scholarships scheme is not regarded as inappropriate in a Motion dealing with the welfare of personnel? I have no intention of enlarging upon that aspect. I simply desire to suggest that the additional facilities will inevitably affect favourably both the welfare and the morale of all ranks in the Service. It is fitting that, in the midst of the greatest war for democracy, so substantial a step towards the democratisation of the Navy should be taken. The House has already shown its pleasure at this step. This Motion provides another vehicle of conveying approval, and for assuring the Admiralty that, in addition to the satisfaction of the citizens at large, there are many ratings and ex-ratings who look forward to the operation and the possible expansion of the scheme, because it will enable their sons to enjoy opportunities which circumstances denied to them. That is a substantial contribution to welfare and to the maintenance of morale. I referred at the outset to our indebtedness to all those who serve. The measure of that indebtedness is beyond assessment. We can at least determine that nothing within reason shall be left undone to ensure the comfort and the wellbeing of all upon whose vigilance and valour so much that is vital to our existence as a free people to-day depends.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not wish to traverse all the many points that my hon. Friend has raised, such as living, food, and dependants; but there are two aspects of the Amendment with which I should like to deal. One must recognise that the Navy to-day is operating under war conditions. Under

such conditions a good many of the amenities that are enjoyed in peace-time, such as furnishings and things inboard, more or less have gone by the board. Nobody would say that in the active service of to-day the food situation is in any way worsened, except by the limitations in the amount of food which are due to the system of rationing now applicable. The questions that I would like to raise are, education and promotion. A boy joining the Service at 15½—as I had the good fortune to do nearly 50 years ago—has to give some indication of his ability as a scholar. He spends his first six months in the Service in improving his education, in learning the first stages of seamanship and the elemental things that. are necessary in the Service; and his second six months in being taught the elementary side of gunnery, rifle practice, and so on. A boy of 15½ who joins to-day has 2½ years to serve before he becomes a man. If he were properly handled there is no reason why in that time he should not qualify for any position in t5e Service, in the commissioned ranks as well. It may be said that some of the lads have had the opportunity of coming through; and have, in fact, come through. But no one with the interests of the Navy at heart would say, I think, that the number of commissions granted from the lower deck since the committee on the subject was first established is anything like the number that might have been granted had there been good will behind the scheme for the promotion of these lads.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into that subject. It is more suitable for the Motion that I do now leave the Chair. It goes beyond the scope of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: The Amendment refers to
those desirous of entering upon a naval career through Dartmouth College.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that that is in Order. It is outside the scope of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He dealt with the welfare of personnel.

Mr. Smith: With respect, Sir, is not the advancement of boys to commissioned rank a question of welfare within the Service? I will, of course, be guided by you; but it seems to me to be a part of the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is. The hon. Member, in moving the Amendment, made it clear that he was dealing with the general welfare of personnel.

Mr. Smith: I bow to your Ruling; but the words are in the Amendment, and it seems to me that after my hon. Friend had dealt with one portion of the Amendment, I might deal with the other.

Mr. Speaker: I noticed that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not dwell on that part of it.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: In support of your Ruling, Sir, I might point out that the Amendment says:
and taking note of the additional facilities to be provided for those desirous of entering upon a naval career through Dartmouth College.
The hon. Member was not referring to those but to the ordinary promotions from the lower deck.

Mr. Speaker: Either of those subjects would be out of Order.

Mr. Smith: I am quite sure that you need no assistance, Sir, from anybody in this House in advising a Member on his position with regard to an Amendment. But the Amendment has been moved, and I must wait until the time comes when I can deal with this subject.
With regard to men in small ships, I have had occasion, before my right hon. Friend became the First Lord, to raise with the Admiralty the question of men in paddle steamers, for instance, who were not getting hard-lying money. I am glad to say that as a result of my communication that has been put right. But when hard-lying money is paid it should be a fixed amount. It should not be within the competence of anybody in the Admiralty to say whether one-half, one-third or the whole amount should be paid. If there is an element of hard-lying to be considered at all, the whole amount should be paid. I will not weary the House; I will I await my opportunity another time. But under war conditions everything should be done for the men afloat and ashore, to make their arduous job as easy and comfortable as it can be made.
I am sure there is no Member in this House who does not look with pride upon the personnel of the Navy, and who does not feel that that personnel is a very great

element in the protection of these islands. These men and boys are willing, and I use the term "boys" advisedly, for in every naval action we have had in this war I notice that some boy has come out in the Honours List. I ask, in supporting my hon. Friend, that anything that can be done to promote the welfare of these men and boys should be done, whether it is by way of educational facilities or amenities, especially when they are ashore. It should not be through the Agnes Weston Home, but something which should be the responsibility of the Navy when the men are ashore equal to their responsibility when the men are afloat. The work that these men are doing and the pride that we have in that work should be reflected in giving the greatest possible amenities to every element that goes to make up this wonderful service.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): I think that we ought to congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Amendment upon the subject which he has chosen and also upon the speech which he made in support of his Amendment. In these times of unrestricted warfare, with all its consequent unpleasantness, the House will agree that the welfare of our sailors is of all the more importance. As the Mover of the Amendment said, welfare in the Navy is sometimes difficult because of the conditions of service in which men have to live. The task of looking after welfare has, however, been simplified in the Admiralty by the fact that we have had a Department in existence for many years under the supervision of the Second Sea Lord, and this Department, on war breaking out, had only to be expanded. I hope in the very short time that I shall address the House to be able to touch upon the various aspects of welfare which were dealt with both by the Mover and by the Seconder. I think, in view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I had better say little of the Dartmouth part of the Amendment, but I will say this, as it is referred to in the Amendment, that the Board of Admiralty are very gratified with the general welcome which has been given to the scheme. A great deal, of course, depends upon how the scheme is operated, and I can assure the House that the Board of Admiralty intend to operate it in the most sympathetic manner possible.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment mentioned the fact that, in war-time, we have not only to consider Jack Tar, but also Jill Wren, and he wanted an assurance that our Wrens were considered in the welfare organisation as well as the male portion of the naval personnel. I can assure him that that is so. We do our very best to provide accommodation suitable for the Wrens and to make them as comfortable as we can, sometimes in rather difficult circumstances. I am sometimes, as Civil Lord, rather appalled by the amount of money for which I am asked in order to provide the accommodation which we think necessary for the feminine portion of the Naval personnel. As the Mover said, it is comparatively easy to provide a reasonable standard of comfort and amenity in a big battleship afloat, or, on the other hand, in a big camp on land, but it is not so easy to cater for the needs of those brave men who go to sea in small craft, such as minesweepers, submarines and other vessels of that kind, or for those who are stationed in small numbers at isolated bases or ports. I think that that was the chief point made in the speech of the Seconder of the Amendment, and I entirely agree with him. We have been doing our best to make life more comfortable for the men in these smaller craft by erecting canteens and baths and providing recreational facilities ashore where these small vessels are based. Incidentally, in doing that we are greatly indebted to the seamen's societies and philanthropic bodies for their prompt and ready assistance in this work. I can assure the Seconder that we do not entirely rely on these bodies. We try to build ourselves, and particularly to provide baths and recreational facilities, but these other bodies have helped in many ways, and the important thing is their readiness to help at once, in order not to waste time.
The Mover dealt with the difficult subject of hot meals. All I can tell him on that is that we try to provide two hot meals a day whenever possible, both in the big craft and the small craft, but it is not always possible in certain types of craft like the motor torpedo boats, because of the way in which they move in the sea. In these cases, we have to make what arrangements we can. In this respect we are now instituting special training for

cooks for the patrol service, because the very difficult problem with which they have to deal is not quite the same as that of the rest of the Navy, and we want, if possible, to get a better standard of cooking, in difficult circumstances, for those unfortunate men who have to go out in the small patrol craft.

Mr. Lathan: The boats, I take it, provide facilities for cooking?

Captain Hudson: They all do, but sometimes they cannot be used because the sea is so rough and the boats are so small. I presume that the new training for the cooks of the patrol craft will have to be of a gymnastic nature in order that they can cook in these extremely difficult circumstances. As I was about to say, drying-rooms are provided wherever possible in the bigger ships, and in the smaller ones very often arrangements have been improvised.
Another point raised as regards the small craft is that of hard-lying money. The present position is that hard-lying money depends on the condition of the vessel. If it is a vessel suddenly taken into commission and thoroughly unsuitable, then, I believe, 100 percent. hard-lying money is given. I am told that for the corvettes mentioned by the Mover half the full amount of hard-lying money is given, and that is the present procedure. I have taken note of what the Mover and Seconder have said as regards hard-lying money and it will no doubt be considered. All the big ships with complements of 500 and over are supplied with cinema equipment and excellent films are provided by the Royal Naval Film Corporation. Thanks to the willing co-operation of the cinema trade there is an organisation for changing them. We have also tried to erect cinemas on land in those out-of-the-way places which have to be frequented by the Navy, where there are few amenities, if any. I would like to describe some of these places but perhaps I had better not, in case they receive unwelcome attention from above.
The "Ensa" concerts given in these places are very much appreciated and I would like to thank those who have organised them as well as those who have taken part in them. Ships with complements of 100 or over are supplied with radio gramophones and loud speakers and smaller vessels are given portable


sets, either by the Nuffield Trust or the Royal Naval War Amenities Fund. I would like to say a word or two about this Fund because it has done, and is doing, extremely good work. In the main, it depends on a very generous public and it exists to provide those amenities which are not a fair charge on the State but which materially add to the well-being of the personnel. Some of the things it does are to run a library scheme — very important, particularly to smaller ships—to give grants-in-aid for erecting clubs and restaurants by philanthropic bodies, for use by officers and men, and to provide theatrical gear and musical instruments and indoor games. The Fund has provided billiard tables and domi-noes—

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the Admiralty itself responsible for supplying technical books to these libraries? What means does the studious man have of getting access to technical books?

Captain Hudson: I think I am right in saying that the Admiralty does supply such books. The Amenities Fund also helps with regard to outdoor recreation, by providing footballs and other games equipment and it might interest the House to know that recently the fund sent skis and skates to one isolated base, of which many Members will know the name. It is really doing most excellent work. I want to say a word, too, about the voluntary organisations outside the Admiralty which have provided, and are providing, gifts in kind in large numbers. They include warm garments, of which 1,000,000 have been given since the war started; cigarettes, 37,000,000 of which have been given in one year; and books and other comforts. Fair distribution is arranged by collaboration with the Admiralty and carried out by means of port amenities liaison officers who are installed at most of the naval bases in the home waters. These officers are in close: contact with the appropriate Admiralty Department. Many of these gifts have come and are coming in gratifying numbers from the Dominions, Crown Colonies, the United States of America, and South America. I have refrained from thanking by name the generous people who have contributed to these voluntary organisations because I am afraid that, were I to start to do so, I should omit one or

more of them and thereby hurt their feelings. We are, however, deeply grateful to every one of them.
With regard to accommodation ashore, the Navy, just like the Army, has to have a large number of shore establishments. As the Navy expands, so is more and more housing required on shore, both for the preliminary training of what are called the "hostilities only "men—the militia of the Navy—and for Naval ratings waiting to be drafted to the new ships which are now coming forward, as my right hon. Friend the First Lord said, in such considerable numbers. When the Military Service Act was passed by the House, we built two big camps for the "hostilities only" trainees, and we are rather proud of those two camps. They were built in peace-time, and I think they are as comfortable and convenient as any camp could be; but since then the Navy has expanded enormously, and besides building, we have had to adapt establishments of different kinds. This has made it difficult to keep up to the standard of comfort which we would desire. Last winter the heating problem was a very great difficulty. The war broke out in September, and the cold weather was upon us soon afterwards. However, this winter I think we have succeeded in heating all of our shore establishments, though in some of them the standard of comfort is not as high as we would wish it to be.
Another problem with which we have had to deal, and with which the other Services have had to deal, has been that of night bombing. We want, if possible, to give our trainees a proper night's rest, and, unfortunately, the Navy are at certain places in the country which are very vulnerable to air attack. We have endeavoured, in order to give them a proper night's rest, to fix bunks in shelters in these shore establishments in vulnerable areas. Very many of the shelters have already been so fitted, and huts in the camps which are now being built are being made blast and splinter proof in the sleeping portion, so that the men can stay there during the night. This is important, because it allows the training to go on without being impeded by the men having perpetually disturbed nights.
I want now to say a word or two on the less material side of welfare. Leave is


given when and where possible, though in the Navy it is sometimes a rather difficult problem, owing to the peculiar nature of the sailor's calling. There is a difficulty in meeting the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan), that we should arrange for the wife to meet her husband, in that we cannot allow relatives to know where a ship is coming in. That is the difficulty. Therefore, we cannot let the wife know so that she could be there to meet her husband. Leave is given wherever possible. We give now four free passes per annum to men in seagoing ships, whereas at the beginning of the war we gave two. As far as possible, we endeavour to look after the man's family by marriage, children's and dependants' allowances. As hon. Members know, these are very much the same for all three Services. There is a Family Welfare Section at each of the three home ports with which commanding officers can communicate direct. I think that answers the point made by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield.

Mr. Lathan: Have the wives access to these Family Welfare Sections?

Captain Hudson: I think I am right in saying that they can go there too. If a man in a seagoing ship is in trouble, he can go to his commanding officer, and the commanding officer can then signal to the Family Welfare Section at the port to look after the man's family.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Either the Minister knows or he does not know. It is no use saying "He thinks." Can the wife or the mother of a man who is serving have access to any of these three depots, and so directly reflect her troubles to whoever is responsible? If not, just imagine the position. A commissioned man has to get the information from his family to his ship, and then from his ship to his commanding officer, and from the commanding officer to the depot, and from the depot back to the woman. The whole thing is ridiculous. Surely there ought to be direct access in these cases.

Captain Hudson: I have been able to ascertain that the women concerned have direct access to these officers at the port in the Family Welfare Section. I now wish to draw the attention of the House to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, an

organisation which is run by the lower deck for the lower deck, and which is actively supported by the Admiralty. This organisation assists in cases of difficulty, sickness and distress. Its members are those men who join the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, either on continuous service or for hostilities only, and it gives relief both during service and after. Therefore it has many calls made upon it. The income of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust is derived in three ways. It has certain accumulated funds on which it receives interest, but the far larger source of income is the money contributed by the men themselves. It is also supported by donations from the public. I should like to say here that the First Lord will always be pleased to receive any contributions to assist in the excellent work of the lower deck society. It is doing an enormous amount of good work, and people who feel grateful for services rendered by the lower deck may perhaps like to show their gratitude in some tangible form by making donations.
I should now like to say a word on casualties. When casualties unfortunately occur, the Board of Admiralty endeavour to give information known to them at the earliest possible moment after instruction is received by the Admiralty. I hope that people with relatives serving at sea will take note of this. For security reasons, and also because of congestion in the Signal Service, it is often impossible to allow "quite safe" messages to be sent out after an action, although we know from experience that large numbers of men wish to communicate with their relatives who may feel anxious about them. I hope that relatives will take note of this and will remember that "No news is good news." By our Parliamentary Procedure I believe that Mr. Speaker cannot leave the Chair until the Amendment has been disposed of, and that that can only be done in two ways—by withdrawing it or by a direct negative. As I am certain that no one in this House wishes to vote against the Amendment which has been so admirably worded, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw it in order that the general Debate may proceed.

Mr. Lathan: Having regard to the assurances given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the chair.]

PERSONNEL.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): In view of the way these Estimates have been received, it would be doing scant courtesy to the Committee if they were to be passed without my making some short reply from this Box. I do not think I have ever heard a Debate upon Service Estimates in which less criticism was levelled at the Minister in charge of the Department. From every speaker the Royal Navy has received fervent congratulations and expressions of great admiration. The Royal Navy is accustomed to perform the task allotted to it quietly, efficiently and without show, nor is it looking back over its shoulder for bouquets, thanks or congratulations. All the same, I am quite certain that all ranks in the Fleet will be very appreciative of the remarks which have been let fall and of the expressions to which Members of the House have given vent. The first to do so was the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and, in thanking him for the tone of his speech and for the generous things that he said about the Service with which he was once privileged to be connected, perhaps he will allow me in return to offer him our congratulations on his election as Chairman of the London County Council. No doubt, the training and experience which he received at the Admiralty went some way to persuade the County Council to elect him.
The hon. Gentleman made one or two suggestions and asked for certain information. I wish it were possible to comply with that request. The Navy has always had the reputation of being the silent Service. I very much fear that the Ministers who represent it in the House will also earn the reputation of becoming silent Ministers, because in these days the vast bulk of the questions that we are asked

cannot possibly be answered. For instance, the hon. Gentleman asked for details as to the loss of the "Glorious." If it were possible to give them, the First Lord would be the first to authorise me to do so, but we have already given the House as much information as we think safe, and I am not in a position to-day to supplement it. The same applies to his remarks on the passage of the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar, and indeed to his suggestion that some indication should be given as to how far our marine losses in the Merchant Fleet constitute a diminution of our available tonnage. These figures could, no doubt, be given, but they would only have one result apart from elucidating the mind of the hon. Gentleman, and that is to give the enemy some details which to-day he may not possess. We are all agreed that every effort must be made to prevent the loss of even a single ship, for each ship that is lost is a calamity from the national point of view. To give replies to such questions will not prosecute the end that we all have in view.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of corvettes and reminded my right hon. Friend that certain criticisms had been made about the qualities of this class of vessel, such as that they were too slow and uncomfortable for their crews. The corvette was produced to meet a particular need. The need at that time was for ships that could hunt submarines and that could be produced quickly. Even in these days of scientific invention we still cannot buy a is. article for 6d., and if these ships were to be produced in a short period of time, we had to accept certain limitations. I am not to be drawn into a discussion of what their actual designed speed is. It is obvious that the greater the designed speed of these craft, the more horse-power they would require and the more slowly they would be built.

Mr. Ammon: Does not the hon. Gentleman see what a serious statement that is and what a serious admission that of the First Lord was? The admission was that the corvettes were not fast enough to catch the new submarines. It is far better that we should have a few competent ships able to do the job than a large number of ships that are not able to do it.

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the fallacy of assuming that
the corvette is the only ship which is hunting the submarine. That is not so. There are the fast destroyers. The corvettes are primarily escort vessels and in that capacity have done magnificent work. They have succeeded, too, in destroying submarines. Their speed is a question to which we have been paying particular attention. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, although a ship may be built to-day to meet a certain situation or certain tactics on the part of the enemy, the situation or the tactics may in the meantime change. If one could have been wise before the event, one might have altered one's plans in advance, but it is not true to say that my right hon. Friend admits that the corvette is not doing its job or is not the type of ship that is fitted to do the job.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: May I put this point of view? It is known that the fastest submarine on the surface does not reach 16 knots. The hon. Gentleman referred to the corvettes as doing submarine hunting. If he can tell me how a ship which is slower than the vessel it hunts can catch it, I shall be glad to know. I should like to see hounds hunting a fox in the same way. The fact is, as I understand it, that it is generally assumed that these ships are not competent to hunt submarines from the point of view of speed, although they are more handy than submarines. It does not need a long view to see that if you want a hunting ship, you must have a fast ship.

Sir V. Warrender: My experience of the hunting field taught me that the fox is considerably faster than the hounds, and yet I have seen hounds kill many brace of foxes. I am not to be drawn into an argument about that. It is true that on the surface a submarine is a comparatively fast vessel, but submerged she becomes slower, and the more escort vessels you have, the more eyes you have to see them, the more you will keep the submarines submerged and the easier it will be to deal with them.
My hon. Friend then went on to make a point affecting the Whitworth scholarships. My right hon. Friend proposes to look into that matter and if there is anything we can do to achieve the result which my hon. Friend has in mind, in a better way than it is being achieved today, we shall sympathetically consider

what action can be taken. Although I have not had an opportunity of studying the problem closely, I should have thought that had they been willing, those scholars could have come in on the engineering side from the universities, and I think that possibly they have not done so because they feel there is more scope for them in civil life.

Mr. Ammon: I think the hon. Gentleman has rather missed the point. The Whitworth scholars are those who come into the Service from the dockyards and from the workshops as against those coming from the universities, and the point was that many of those who attain high standards in their examination have to leave the Service because there is not room for them, although we have trained them.

Sir V. Warrender: I shall be quite ready to go into the point raised by the hon. Member. I turn next to the speech made by the gallant Admiral of the Fleet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) and would thank him for the great tribute he paid to the young men who are under his command to-day. If they will emulate the example which he has set them, they will benefit greatly from their education. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Capt. Marsden) raised several points in his very cheerful manner. I do not propose to reply to. them all, because I do not think he would expect it. As far as the pay of midshipmen who are coming into the Service as a result of the Dartmouth scholarships is concerned, my right hon. Friend gave him an assurance which I think satisfied him. Then he raised the question of retired, commissioned warrant officers and made a proposal to my right hon. Friend which he thought would meet a need which he and other officers in the Service are concerned about. I have discussed that matter with the First Lord, and he has authorised me to say that he is looking into it and proposes to deal with it. My hon. and gallant Friend also made some references to the need for preventing loss of time in the shipyards during "alerts" and so on. I think the morale in the shipyards which I have visited is remarkably good. No doubt there are bad men as well as good men, and one gets slackness on the part of certain individuals, but we are fully alive to the need for keeping up the spirit and the morale of our shipbuilding men, and


Admiral Sir Michael Hodges is now touring the shipbuilding centres of the country and speaking to the workmen on the site of their work. He came to see me only this morning and told me that he has addressed no fewer than 127,000 men in the shipyards, and I think he is doing extraordinarily good work in impressing upon those on whom we rely to build our ships how much success in this war lies in their hands.
A great tribute was paid by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) to the service rendered by the Naval Reserves. Naturally, I find myself in cordial agreement with him; indeed, I do not know where the nation would be were it not for these men and seamen who do some of the dirtiest jobs. My hon. Friend asked a few pertinent questions, most of which I propose not to answer.

Mr. Liddall: Why not?

Sir V. Warrender: I think he will realise why not.

Mr. Liddall: I do not.

Sir V. Warrender: I can tell him, when he asks me whether we are impressed with the need for ships, that we are so impressed; and as to whether we are pressing on with the equipment of merchant ships with anti-aircraft weapons, 1 tell him that that is the case.

Mr. Liddall: I did not ask my hon. Friend whether he was impressed. I asked what he was doing about it.

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend told the House in his speech that some thousands of ships were now equipped with close-range anti-aircraft armament. We are continuing to equip them as fast as we can. My hon. Friend asked me whether the shipyards were being used to full capacity and whether we were getting all the labour that we required. He knows the answer to those questions without asking. Nevertheless, I can tell him that we are using every shipyard we can, provided that we have the requisite labour. We are, and have for several months been, in touch with the Ministry of Labour, in order to retain in or to get back into the industry the maximum number of men.

Mr. Liddall: My point was about combing-out men who are of value to the ship-
building yards in order to supply other Forces. Such men are being roped into the various branches of His Majesty's Forces, although they could be much more useful, doing work to which they are accustomed, if they were brought back into the shipyards.

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend knows that there is a conflict of interests. Such men are vitally required to build ships, but are also vitally required by the land Forces for the repair and maintenance of Army vehicles. It is a question of assimilating the needs of one Force to those of another.

Mr. Liddall: I asked that ships should be given priority.

Sir V. Warrender: I agree that it is a question of priority and that it is for each Service to substantiate its claim. My hon. Friend, knowing the First Lord of the Admiralty well, may be sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not slow in stating his case. I cannot go further than that. My hon. Friend suggested that we should go back to the use of coal for the Fleet. That is a very long and contentious argument. I do not propose to embark upon it. It is sufficient to say that the qualities and the performance of our fighting ships must be equivalent, if not superior, to those of enemy ships which they have to meet at sea. If we have to meet oil-driven ships, which have very superior qualities, while we have sent coal-fired ships, these ships will be in a position of immediate inferiority. It is no exaggeration to say that the Battle of the River Plate could never have ended in a British victory if the cruisers which met the pocket battleship had not been oil-fired. They would not have been able to turn on extra speed at a moment's notice; indeed, they might not have had the fuel required to complete the action, coal being very difficult to obtain in those waters. So that I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that, after many years of study, the view taken by the Admiralty that the Fleet should use oil fuel is the correct one.
He also asked why the men in the Merchant Navy did not receive military awards and decorations. They are given civil awards for the reason that it is in their own interest. If they were given? military decorations, they might be suspect were they to fall into enemy hands.


Members of this Service are given military awards if they are employed directly on active service, as they were, for instance, in the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Some concern was expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) about the First Lord's remarks concerning corvettes. I hope I have been able to allay this concern. The hon. and gallant Member was good enough to tell us that he had some particulars about a mass-production submarine which the Germans were adopting, and I understand that he said that it would have serious repercussions. Obviously, these are matters which are better not discussed on the Floor of the House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty are fully alive to the traditional ingenuity of the Germans, and we know of what they are capable. But in case my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion tends to cause public alarm, let it at least be remembered that although one may be able to build a submarine comparatively quickly, it is quite a different thing to find the crew to manage it or indeed the officer with the high degree of skill and courage required to command it and to undertake its successful operation at sea.
Finally, the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) referred to the housing difficulties in a particular dockyard. We have been very much aware for some time of the conditions which have existed there, and we are fully conversant with the hardship which in many cases has been imposed upon those working in the yard. We have made very strenuous efforts indeed, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, to get additional housing there, and in addition we have endeavoured to requisition houses and housing estates in the neighbourhood where the labour required could be accommodated. We are still persisting in our efforts to ease the housing situation—that is, my hon. Friend the Civil Lord is, because he is primarily interested in it—and if the hon. Gentleman has any views which will be of assistance, my hon. Friend will be only too glad to receive them. I might be allowed to mention that we have recently increased the subsistence allowance to men transferred up there from 21s. a week to

24s. 6d. a week, following upon the scheme brought in a few months ago by the Ministry of Labour to cater for workpeople sent to employment too far away from their homes for them to be able to travel backwards and forwards each day.
I think I have covered all the speeches which have been delivered on these Estimates, save those which refer specifically to the Amendment. Before sitting down, perhaps I might be allowed to say this: The glamour of the naval Service is naturally centred very much upon the men in the fighting ships, but it is sometimes forgotten that those men could not carry out their heroic deeds were it not for the fact that there is a sound and healthy organisation behind them. It is the fashion in these days in some quarters to deride the efficiency of the efforts made by the civil servants of this country. I think that those who have had experience of working at the Admiralty will agree with me that there we are singularly fortunate in the civil servants whom we find both in the responsible and in the subordinate positions in that Department. Let it not be forgotten that there has been a great expansion. Whereas the War Office, as I very well know, has had great relief in many respects by the formation of the Ministry of Supply, the Admiralty is still working the same organisation on an expanded basis which it had at the beginning of the war.
The task of victualling and clothing the Fleet in these days, when supply may be interrupted at any moment by enemy action in our own country, is a very responsible one and not very easy. 1 do not think it would be fair to leave out of the general recognition of services rendered given in this House to-day those civilians, of whom there are many thousands working long hours, who give a most wonderful devotion to their duty and who have a wonderful pride that they are serving the men of the Fleet. The fact that we are being spared any breakdowns of a serious nature is a great tribute to the devotion to duty of these men and women—because a great many of them are women. The enthusiasm is terrific, and I think they deserve a pat on the back from this House as well as from everybody else.

Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONNEL SERVING WITH THE FLEET.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding;£100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1940. RESOLVED,

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Schedule.


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


I. Wages, &amp;c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet.
10
13,000,000

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. Munro.]